Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CHILD CARE PROCEDURES AND PRACTICE IN NORTH WALES

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there shall be laid before this House a Return of the Report of the Examination Team on Child Care Procedures and Practice in North Wales.—[Mr. Hague.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Revenue Support Grant

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the outturn of the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [31646]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Welsh local authorities and police authorities have budgeted for net revenue expenditure of £2,934 million in 1996–97. It is too early to estimate what actual expenditure will be.

Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State must be aware that Neath and Port Talbot council has suffered unique discrimination at the hands of the Welsh Office's revenue support allocation. How can he justify the fact that one half of former West Glamorgan, Swansea, has levied a 4.5 per cent. council tax increase whereas, before damping, Neath and Port Talbot, the other half, levied 45 per cent.—nearly 10 times as much? How can he justify the fact that Trebanos village is split down the middle, and one side pays £90 more? In March, both sides were paying exactly the same. He must intervene. Responsibility does not lie with the council. It has inherited a standard of service, which has been agreed by the Welsh Office, and is having to carry the can for the Welsh Office's discriminatory settlement. Surely he should intervene and prevent catastrophe next year, if not this.

Mr. Hague: The settlement is not discriminatory, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The council tax damping schemes that I have introduced are designed to reduce the effect of discrepancies such as the one he described. The effect is that no council tax increase in Wales can be more than 25 per cent. in the current year. A total of £3.7 million of council tax reduction grant has gone

to Neath and Port Talbot. Its standard spending assessment per capita is higher than the Welsh average, so it would not be fair to say that it has suffered unique discrimination.

Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject.

Madam Speaker: In that case, we shall move on.

Business Rates

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received with regard to the consultation document his Department published in May on the level of business rates on shop, post office and small businesses in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement. [31647]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): There have been four responses to the consultation, including one from the hon. Gentleman. The consultation period runs until 21 June.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the importance of the matter to small businesses and shops in rural Wales, why has there been only a five-week consultation period? Why have organisations that represent people who live in rural Wales, such as the young farmers clubs, Merched y Wawr and women's institutes, not been invited to comment? Will the Minister give an assurance that, in view of the inconsistencies in the definition of rural area, whereby areas such as Ruabon, Llanwern, and Margam are defined as rural, but areas such as Llanrug, Felinheli, and Criccieth are not—which must be wrong—he will look at the definition again and ensure that businesses such as bakeries and rural pharmacies are included in the provisions so that they have a future in rural Wales?

Mr. Jones: The original list of consultees was extensive. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, in view of all the publicity for the rural White Paper, it would be surprising if any group that wanted to put forward its opinion was not aware of the matter. Any group that has sought a copy of the document will have been provided with one by the Welsh Office.
As to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, our proposals envisage covering 519 communities—84 per cent. of the land area of Wales. In addition to the definition that we have used, which is the only accepted definition that originates from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we propose to define a further 17 appropriate communities, which would bring in settlements such as Newcastle Emlyn, Usk and Bala. I am aware of the settlements that he mentioned, and we will consider them as part of the consultation process, but no other respondent has made a similar point.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 50 per cent. relief scheme for shops and post offices will be widely welcomed throughout Wales, covering, as it does, 84 per cent. of the land area? Has he had the full endorsement of the Opposition parties or are they, as I suspect, about to hijack the proposal for electioneering


purposes? Will he confirm that some thousands of small businesses in Wales already receive transitional relief as a result of the revaluation last year?

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially about the welcome that has been given to the proposals. He is too optimistic in imagining that we will hear much about policy from the Opposition. The principal Opposition party is most nervous about giving any details about anything until it has become well-established Conservative policy. I doubt whether Plaid Cymru's policy of local income tax and extra corporation tax will sit at all well with small businesses in Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When he analyses the responses to the consultation, will the Minister examine the undoubted decline in private ownership of shops in towns and villages in rural Wales? Does he recognise that, once the consultation is completed, the introduction of rate relief, especially for village post offices, is urgent, because they continue to close and villages are losing their services?

Mr. Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I are of like mind about the importance and desirability of making progress on that matter. He will welcome our latest planning guidance. which is equally relevant to village shops and other rural businesses, and in which we have introduced a sequential test for local authorities when they consider out-of-town shopping developments. They should consider in-town, edge-of-town and then out-of-town developments. That is much more succinct than the extant guidance.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that small shops, small post offices and small businesses are the sorts of businesses that would be badly hit by a national minimum wage?

Mr. Jones: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He makes that point most appropriately. Small businesses in Wales are worried, as are the people whom they employ. They know that the Opposition's policy of a minimum wage and the social chapter could increase unemployment in Wales by between 40,000 and 80,000, which, at the top end, would almost double unemployment in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: Perhaps the Minister should concentrate on the present and leave the future to us. Why is he answering this question when, last week, the Welsh Office put out a press release that said that all rural affairs were being pulled into one portfolio and that the Minister responsible would be the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)? Perhaps that is another unforced reorganisation in the Welsh Office. On rural affairs, does he share our concern about reports such as that by Peter Midmore of Aberystwyth university that the immediate, direct cost of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to the rural economy would be the loss of 1,000 jobs and £80 million of production? We want an urgent debate on the crisis and, in particular, an opportunity to examine the Government's response to it. Why is the Welsh Office so reluctant to give in to our calls for a meeting of the Welsh

Grand Committee? Do the Government not understand the seriousness of the situation in rural Wales or are they running away for fear of answering for their policies?

Mr. Jones: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's claims. I am answering the question under the basic premise of my day-to-day responsibility, under the Secretary of State, for local government financial matters.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, I do not have the study that he mentions before me, but I certainly share his concern about the scale of the problem, which is betokened by the fact that the Government have already committed more than £1 billion to respond to the problems faced by our farmers and everyone else involved. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Welsh Grand Committee. There is certainly no reluctance on the part of the Government to have a meeting on the subject that he mentions—or on any other subject—but what we find difficult to understand is why Labour Front-Bench spokesmen are trying to eliminate the rights of Back Benchers at such a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee.

Tourism (Cardiff)

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist the development of Cardiff as an international tourism destination. [31648]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The Wales tourist board, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, local authorities and Cardiff Marketing Ltd. are working together to promote Cardiff as a major international tourism destination.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that superb visitor attractions such Techniquest and Harry Ramsden's fish restaurant, both of which I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this year, are making a significant contribution towards Cardiff Bay development corporation's target of 2 million visitors by the end of the century? What help can my hon. Friend and his Department give to those who would like to see an opera house in Cardiff bay, as yet another international facility to attract visitors?

Mr. Jones: I am glad to know that my hon. Friend has visited Harry Ramsden's and Techniquest. By coincidence, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the same pleasures on Thursday and Friday. I can report that we all returned from Porthcawl reinvigorated with fresh confidence for the future. I can tell my hon. Friend that I believe that Cardiff Bay development corporation is well on track to achieve its target. Its current year target is more than 1.3 million visitors, and I think that both its targets will be achieved. I would welcome opportunities to explore further possibilities for tourist attractions, not least an opera house or whatever would be felt most agreeable to the local community.

Higher Education

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on funding for higher education in Wales. [31649]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): This year, my hon. Friends and I have received 20 letters from Members of Parliament, representative bodies and individuals about higher education in Wales.

Mr. Dafis: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post and I am glad to see him on the Treasury Bench. Did he listen carefully to the representations of the heads of higher education institutions in Wales who told him and the Government that the combination of cuts in spending that are projected to continue until 1999 and the increase in student numbers are creating an impossible situation in higher education? In particular, the 44 per cent. reduction in capital spending is serious, especially as there is no sign that the private finance initiative will take off and work effectively in Wales. Will he seriously address this situation, recognising the enormous importance of higher education to the Welsh economy and to the future success of Wales as a nation and act accordingly by at least suspending further cuts until the Dearing report has been completed and provided to the Government?

Mr. Evans: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity of his welcome. I regard higher education as one of the Government's great success stories. It goes without saying that the increase in the proportion of our young people with opportunities for higher education has led to some of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers. From one in eight, we have moved to one in three young people now having such opportunities. That is why it was clearly right for the Government to entrust Sir Ron Dearing with studying the implications of that increase. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the heads of higher education last week. My right hon. Friend has said that he will take account of the points that they put to him in the coming public expenditure survey round and, in due course, when he considers any recommendations from Sir Ron Dearing. The private finance initiative should be strongly welcomed. A balance has to be struck in that initiative and, at the moment, aiming for 30 per cent. seems to be the right balance.

Maternity Care

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on standards of maternity care in hospitals in Wales. [31650]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Public satisfaction with NHS health care remains high—typically more than 90 per cent. Information from the 1995 Welsh health survey shows that more than 19 out of 20 women surveyed were satisfied with the care provided by midwives, in particular.

Lady Olga Maitland: For most women, childbirth is the most important time in their lives during which they need medical assistance. Has my hon. Friend studied a report from the Department of Health in England entitled "Changing Childbirth", which gives greater priority than ever before to assessing the individual needs of a mother and to helping her to make her own choices about the management of childbirth? Does he intend to implement the report's proposals in Wales?

Mr. Jones: I am well aware of the Department of Health report to which my hon. Friend refers. We have a

protocol that covers the matter, and it is being updated. The work is being led by the North Wales health authority. In addition, the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer have commissioned a review of the matter, focusing on making progress with the various parties in the protocol. The report is imminent.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Now that the problems of the internal market have been seen clearly in Wales, will the Minister guarantee that there will be no reduction in the standard of maternity care as a result of the substitution of staff grade doctors for consultants in maternity units?

Mr. Jones: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one in the NHS in Wales wants any reduction in care.

Barry Docks

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to encourage the redevelopment of Barry docks. [31651]

Mr. Hague: On 3 June, I welcomed the launch of the redevelopment of Barry docks, which is being undertaken as a joint venture between Associated British Ports and the Welsh Development Agency, with the potential to create 2,000 jobs and 1,000 new homes.

Mr. Sweeney: On behalf of the people of Barry, I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent visit to the Barry waterfront, where he made a stirring speech. Does he agree that the project, which will mean many new jobs for the Vale of Glamorgan, represents the most important development since the docks were built? Is it not a prime example of partnership between ABP—from the private sector—the WDA and local authorities?

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to my speech on that occasion. This is a significant project that, when completed, will do much to improve the economy of the dock area, Barry town and the Vale of Glamorgan in general. It is a fine example of partnership between the public and private sectors, and builds on our excellent record since 1979 of land reclamation in Wales. So far, more than 15,000 acres have been involved. It is the largest and most sustained programme of its kind in Europe.

Welsh Assembly

Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has received on the establishment of an assembly for Wales. [31652]

Mr. Hague: Since 1 January, I have received three letters about a Welsh Assembly—one in favour, and two against.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful for that interesting response. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no demand among the people of Wales—or among the good people of the north-west of England—for yet another tier of government? They think that the levels of government we currently have are bad enough. Does he


agree that going down that cul de sac would be an attack on the very integrity of the United Kingdom and would begin the break-up of the Union?

Mr. Hague: I agree with my hon. Friend that an extra tier of government would be a waste of time, a waste of space and a waste of money. It would weaken, not strengthen, the position of Wales in the United Kingdom. The people of Wales voted by four to one against the proposal on the previous occasion they were consulted on it. What puzzles them is that the Opposition want to overturn such a referendum without having the guts to say that they would hold another one.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not apparent that we need an assembly now, if only to protect essential Welsh interests? We are increasingly losing out to Bristol. The latest casualties are the forensic laboratory in Chepstow and the traffic commission office in Cardiff. It appears that the Secretary of State is falling down on the job and needs some reinforcement.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman represents one of the Newport constituencies, where, on St. David's day, I was able to announce 800 new jobs because of one of the largest investments into Wales that has ever been undertaken—so I do not think anyone has been falling down on that job. That is the type of thing that has been taking place in recent years, and the establishment of an assembly would be no help whatsoever in such work.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What could a Welsh Assembly, under a supposed Labour Government of the future, achieve that the Welsh Grand Committee cannot? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Grand Committee is a much better forum to protect and advance Welsh interests than a spurious assembly without a proper mandate?

Mr. Hague: The Welsh Grand Committee could achieve a good deal more if the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) would agree to its having a Question Time, which is what I have been asking him to do, but certainly an assembly could not achieve very much. Opposition Members cannot agree about how its members would be elected, so they cannot get very far with saying what it might achieve.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Might it just be that the reason for the small response to the Secretary of State is that the people of Wales do not take him very seriously, do not think it is worth writing to him, recognise that he does not want to meet our local authority leaders and feel that he and his team are no longer relevant to Wales?

Mr. Hague: They write to me in their thousands about many other subjects, so they appear to take me and my colleagues seriously. It may just be that they regard this subject as an utter irrelevance and waste of time.

Mr. Morgan: Does not the Secretary of State have to agree that a Welsh Assembly would be far more efficient and democratic than the present set-up in considering a wide range of issues, from his unconscionable dithering about the location of the new Euro-freight terminal to the new proposals for the Welsh ambulance service? Should

not the future of the Welsh ambulance service be debated and discussed in the open by the people of Wales, instead of being sorted out behind closed doors by a small, tightly knit cabal of personally motivated people—the 10 men who run the present ambulance trusts in Wales?

Mr. Hague: All those matters are handled by Ministers who are accountable to this House, and they can be debated in this House. The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that, if such matters were devolved to a Welsh Assembly, Welsh Members of this House would no longer be able to hold Ministers accountable on those subjects, so democratic accountability would be weakened, not improved.

RAF Valley

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Ministry of Defence about maintaining Royal Air Force maintenance facilities by Royal Air Force personnel in Ynys Môn. [31653]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The recently let service contract at RAF Valley preserves the defence of the United Kingdom, improves value for money for the taxpayer and provides local employment opportunities. That represents a good outcome.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect that that is not the view of RAF personnel who live at RAF Valley, or of RAF personnel throughout the United Kingdom? They consider that it is not in the best interests of our defence that we should privatise the repair and maintenance of Hawk and other essential defence aircraft to organisations that have not trained people in these skills, and that will not train them in future. Is it not time that the Government reflected that that short-termism is not in the interests of that part of Wales in terms of cutting essential public expenditure there, and is undermining the defence of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Evans: About 200 existing civilian employees will transfer to the new contractor, retaining their current terms and conditions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and about 400 new civilian jobs will be created.
I think that everyone in the House acknowledges that the Conservative party does not control many local authorities in Wales, but the leader of Anglesey county council greeted the move as
very good news. We are very pleased that the company has won this contract. It is the proof of partnership",
and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who represents the area, said:
This announcement could be a tremendous boost to local employment".
I therefore believe that the hon. Gentleman's is an isolated view.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. Is he aware that, last week, the campaign group that was set up to defend jobs at Valley had its first meeting with BRAMA—the company that secured the contract for aircraft maintenance at Valley?


Is he aware of the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales—that, when a training programme is agreed between the company and the training agencies, money will be available for that programme? Will he now give me an assurance that, when the company and the agencies have finally agreed on that training programme, he will agree to meet a deputation from the island to consider funding?

Mr. Evans: Yes, I am aware of the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave. That commitment has been welcomed locally. As to the hon. Gentleman's other points, let me make it clear that the Welsh Office has always been prepared to speak to anyone. Unfortunately, Welsh local authorities do not want to speak to the Welsh Office.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses have been built by local authorities in Wales in each year since 1979; and how many he expects will be built in the current year. [31654]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Information for each year between 1979 and 1994 has been published in "Welsh Housing Statistics No. 15, 1995", a copy of which is in the Library. In 1995, 176 dwellings were completed. A forecast for this year is not available.

Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister agree that the figures from 1979 to the current year—a paltry 176 dwellings were built in 1995—show a massive decline in the number of houses being built by local authorities when housing need is rising? The Government are not providing the finance and are not letting local authorities spend capital receipts. My local authority has several million pounds of capital receipts. Why is it not allowed to have a phased increase in capital receipts expenditure to house homeless people in Flintshire?

Mr. Evans: As the hon. Gentleman should know, during the period to which he referred, the Government provided significant resources for housing associations to develop houses for people who wanted to rent and for people who wanted to take the low-cost home ownership route. Housing associations' success in delivering that programme is outstanding, and he should pay due regard to it. As to his proposition that the Delyn authority should be allowed to use—

Mr. Hanson: It is Flintshire.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Delyn, and I have the figures for Delyn, which reveal that there are no receipts available to be used in any event. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he referred to the Flintshire authority. One of the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that it may result in houses being provided in areas where there is least need for them. The Government's policy is to ensure that we build social housing where it is needed for the homeless. We did that during the 1980s and we will continue to do it during the 1990s and beyond.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will be aware that, a couple of years ago, the Welsh Affairs Committee released a

report on affordable housing in Wales. He will know from that report that there is a crying need for social housing throughout Wales. As one who used to be involved with Tai Cymru, he will know that the present trickle of funding will not meet anything like the need. Present policies will do nothing for young people who want to get married and move into their own homes. The present position is disastrous, both in rural areas and in urban areas.

Mr. Evans: The policies that have been developed by Tai Cymru and rural housing associations have done a significant amount to address some of the sensitivities that were previously ignored by large-scale council housing programmes in rural areas—as the hon. Gentleman will know. He substantially underestimates the volume of the programme that the housing associations are currently delivering. I understand that some 3,500 homes will be delivered in the Principality this year. The hon. Gentleman should be praising, not denigrating, that record.

Sir Raymond Powell: I welcome the Minister to his new post. I want him to answer one specific question. Will he tell me, the House and the people I represent why the Government will not allow money that my local authority has in the bank to be spent on housing development to house the people on our waiting lists?

Mr. Evans: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his recognition in the birthday honours list. He is well aware of the sincerity of that welcome; I have known him for many years.
I have the figures for the hon. Gentleman's authority, which I presume is the Ogwr authority. Funds are, in fact, available for that authority to use. Before the hon. Gentleman demands that they should be increased still further, perhaps he will ask the authority what it is doing to utilise the resources that it can use.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new brief in the Welsh Office, although I must say that I sympathise with him in regard to the rather weak material that he has had with which to answer the question. May I also, on behalf of the Welsh Opposition Front-Bench team, congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) on his recent elevation to a knighthood? His family will be especially pleased, and his wife, Lady Marion, deserves her title as much as he deserves his.
Will the Minister confirm that public sector house building has been reduced by about 30 per cent. since 1979, that Tai Cymru's approved development programme has been reduced by about the same amount since 1992–93 and that building by Tai Cymru has never reached the target that it would have liked to have reached? It is not surprising that homelessness in Wales and the number of people living in bedsits have doubled in the past decade. Is the Minister not ashamed of that record?

Mr. Evans: I am afraid that the real cause of homelessness is the breakdown of relationships rather than a failure on the part of Government to provide new housing. Just since 1989, some £1.1 billion has been invested in Welsh housing associations, producing 25,000


additional homes in Wales. The massive programmes delivered by councils in the days to which the hon. Gentleman refers—those halcyon days to which he seems to want to return, when Labour authorities were actively engaged with Labour Governments in building the Gurnos and Penrhys estates on mountain tops in south Wales—have gone. I believe that they have gone for good, and rightly so.
It is important for us to have new social housing programmes that deliver housing of the sort that people want to live in—very much more sensitive, smaller-scale developments. That is what Housing for Wales has been doing; and I think that the £1.1 billion programme that has been in operation since 1989 is substantial in itself.

Voluntary Organisations

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years. [31655]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The latest available figures at outturn prices for direct grants are £12.3 million for 1992–93, £14.1 million for 1993–94 and £13.8 million for 1994–95. In addition, indirect grants are paid via other bodies.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a cost-effective form of public expenditure? Can he tell me by how much expenditure has increased since 1979, and how many organisations are in receipt of it?

Mr. Evans: I have a sheaf of information about the individual bodies that have been funded by the Welsh Office, directly and indirectly, but, in view of the time factor and your strictures, Madam Speaker, I shall send a full note of that information to my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his recognition of, and support for, the important work done by the voluntary sector in Wales, which we in the Welsh Office fully recognise.

School Standards

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in raising standards at general certificate of secondary education level in Welsh schools. [31656]

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Progress has been heartening. The percentage of 15-year-olds gaining five or more A to C-grade GCSEs increased by 8 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. It is important to build on those achievements. Our "Bright Future" programme shows the way forward. I join parents in Wales whose children have been taking GCSE examinations in the past two weeks in welcoming that progress.

Dr. Spink: I am delighted with, and welcome, that answer. Does my hon. Friend believe, like me, that the Government's policies of promoting parental choice, of more diversity in schools, of testing children, and of publishing the results—especially league tables—have driven up standards? Does he think that Labour should be ashamed of its opposition to our sound education policies?

Mr. Evans: My first plaudits would be to pupils and parents and to their teachers for their achievements.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: a framework must be set in place, too. We must constantly set ourselves higher targets. I am pleased that, from now on, every secondary school in Wales will set targets to ensure that each year it beats its previous best. If we are to build the economy that Wales needs for the future, we must ensure that the Principality's children are educated to the best standard possible. As my hon. Friend said, we must do so against the background of the Opposition's vehement opposition to testing and the national curriculum. Interestingly, they have eventually come round to recognising the value of our achievements.

Single Currency

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation he has made of attitudes towards a single currency expressed in the bi-annual survey of business opinion published on 4 June by the Institute of Directors in Wales. [31657]

Mr. Hague: None. A decision about a single currency will be made if and when necessary.

Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State accept that cuts of £18,000 million will be necessary to meet the convergence criteria for a single currency? Which services are most likely to be cut? Will it be health, education or social services? Does he also accept that almost all the major economic decisions would be transferred from democratically elected Parliaments to the most powerful quango not only in Wales but in the world—the European central bank?

Mr. Hague: Future taxation and spending decisions are for the Government and for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On any transfer of decision making, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we shall not do anything that would damage the nation state. If we thought that any action would do so, we would choose the nation state.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend observed Welsh and overseas reaction to the proposed single currency, notably in Germany yesterday where workers are on strike and are expressing their feelings about expenditure cuts by the German Government? What does my right hon. Friend think?

Mr. Hague: That emphasises my point that any decision on a single currency should be taken at the appropriate time, and that any positive recommendation to join should be put to a referendum.

Derelict and Contaminated Land

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on (a) derelict and (b) contaminated land in (i) Cynon Valley and (ii) Wales. [31659]

Mr. Gwiylm Jones: The Government's policy on contaminated land in England and Wales is set out in the document, "Framework for Contaminated Land", which was published in November 1994. Since 1979,


the Government have committed some £300 million to reclaiming derelict land in Wales, including about £17.5 million in Cynon Valley.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister is aware of the great concern in the Cynon Valley about the toxic waste left dumped at the village of Abercwmboi after the closure of the Furnacite plant. Ironically, the plant was closed because of environmental considerations, yet its toxic waste has been dumped on the doorsteps of those who lost their jobs when the works shut. People want a permanent solution to the problem, not the temporary one that the Welsh Development Agency is offering. Will he agree to a permanent solution, and will he make the necessary money available to the WDA?

Mr. Jones: As the hon. Lady knows, the matter cannot proceed until all the necessary permissions have been obtained. It is being studied by her local authority, which, in tandem with the Welsh Development Agency, is considering the consultants' reports. I know that the agency is satisfied that its proposals are appropriate, satisfactory and cost-effective.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the WDA is making serious cuts in its derelict land reclamation programme? Deep navigation and the Taff Merthyr site in my community could cause serious delays in the development of sites. Given the sad record of closures as a result of Government decisions, such development is vital. Will he, through the Secretary of State, ensure that the agency's capital budget is refinanced? The Secretary of State's predecessor promised that, if property sales did not produce returns, the Government would make up the difference in the budget—thereby restoring the agency's land reclamation programme.

Mr. Jones: We will naturally consider future years in the light of the situation then prevailing. For the current year, the WDA has a budget of £14 million for land reclamation, and it is determined to maintain that budget.

Trading Links (European Union)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve trading links between Wales and the European Union. [31660]

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend recently announced a three-year extension to the Welsh trade mission programme. A visit to Germany took place last month, and a mission will go to Belgium and the Netherlands in November. Also, the first approvals under the Wales-Ireland Interreg II programme will be issued shortly.

Mr. Flynn: Is not the main reason why 100 Japanese companies and a small number of Korean companies have settled in Wales that those businesses like that location, which gives them access to the European Union market? What effect is the present civil war in the Conservative party having on companies that are thinking of bringing high-tech jobs to Wales? When will the Prime Minister make a clear declaration that Wales and the United Kingdom will remain at the heart of the EU market?

Mr. Jones: I detected the slightest welcome from the hon. Gentleman for yet another announcement of inward investment in Wales—a matter on which his party has been conspicuously silent. May I further infer from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he would condemn any proposals by his party to impose the social chapter or minimum wage, or to introduce a Welsh Assembly? All those measures would be massive disincentives to further inward investment in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service were rejected for prosecution in (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [31636]

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): In 1994–95, out of some 1.38 million cases, 161,429 were discontinued. In 1995–96, out of some 1.28 million cases, the number discontinued totalled 152,729.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Attorney-General aware that, between 1980 and 1989, the number of notifiable offences recorded by the police increased by 96 per cent? During the same period, the number of individuals found guilty at Crown and magistrates courts fell by 31 per cent. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the anger and frustration felt by the victims of crime on finding that the Crown Prosecution Service does not pursue criminals through the court procedures?

The Attorney-General: I would well understand it if that happened, but the hon. Gentleman's figures do not show anything of the sort. They refer to the number of cases notified to the police, which are different from the number of cases in which the police are able to bring charges to the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service. The hon. Gentleman and the House will be pleased to note the ever-closer working relationship between the police and the CPS, which is the effective way to bring wrongdoers to justice and thereby best satisfy the victim.

Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. and learned Friend notice the extraordinary recent case in which a business man who arrested a persistent burglar on his premises found himself prosecuted? If so, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the charges against the business man were completely thrown out by the jury and that the judge awarded costs to the defendant? Why was that prosecution not rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service in the first place? Did it completely take leave of its senses in bringing that case?

The Attorney-General: I noted that case and the same sort of questions entered my mind. I rapidly discovered that there was much more to the case than met the eye. The victim—who was a past wrongdoer on a number of occasions—was apprehended by not one but four people, who repeatedly assaulted him over three hours. At no point during that time were the police notified.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Can the Attorney-General confirm that discontinuance of cases is never influenced by a manpower shortage in the CPS? Is he aware that, at branch level, there is considerable dissatisfaction among CPS staff because of the consistent failure to replace professional staff when they leave, and that many professional staff feel discouraged by the service and are leaving in significant numbers?

The Attorney-General: I am certainly not aware of the latter point about professional staff leaving in significant numbers. I will consider the matter, but I do not believe that that is true. I am certainly aware of the pressures that come on any organisation when budgets are under pressure, but the CPS is rallying extremely well to that and I look forward to seeing it as I travel throughout the country in the coming weeks.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about cases that the CPS decides not to pursue? Is he aware of the deep frustration felt by police officers who have spent a long time preparing what they regard as open and shut cases, only to find that the CPS does not appear willing to pursue them, for reasons unknown to the police? What would be his advice to a police officer who has been frustrated in that way? Should he turn to his Member of Parliament, as he has in this case, or is there a better procedure that police should pursue? Should it not be the CPS's objective to ensure that the police officer concerned in a case has a full understanding of how and why it has behaved on that case?

The Attorney-General: The short answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's serious question is yes. The CPS goes to great lengths to ensure that, on any occasion where it needs to discontinue a case, the police are not only fully informed, but fully consulted. Discontinuances that are not agreed with the police amount to only some 4 per cent. of those that are discussed with them, which is three quarters of all such cases. I advise my hon. Friend's constituent, who is a police officer, to get in touch with the police administration support unit or the crime support unit that relates to his local branch. That should provide a thoroughly effective method of communication. What I do understand from my hon. Friend is that it is essential that communication gets through from the officer to the CPS and vice versa so that everyone, including the victim, understands exactly what is happening.

Mr. Hoon: What proportion of cases accepted for prosecution are subsequently abandoned and at what stage in the criminal process is that decision taken? Is it not clear that the later in the process criminal proceedings are abandoned, the greater the wasted costs and the greater the concern about the original judgment to launch the prosecution?

The Attorney-General: That may be the case. Obviously, the further down the road one goes, the more costs have been incurred and it is undesirable to abandon a case at a late stage. If it must be abandoned, it is right that it should be done as early as possible. That is why the CPS and the police are working closely to "get it right first time", as it is now known in the jargon, so that the police can provide the CPS with the proper material from the outset. Joint performance management will, I hope,

improve the proportion of cases that are got right first time. The number of discontinued cases is quite small. If the hon. Gentleman considers the statistics, he will notice, for example, that the number discontinued in the Crown court is only 8 per cent. As a lawyer, he knows how many difficulties can arise, especially with witnesses, who may disappear, so that is not an especially remarkable figure.

Successful Prosecutions

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Attorney-General what new proposals he has to increase the number of successful prosecutions. [31638]

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The CPS and the police are working together on several initiatives to bring the right cases promptly to court, including further charging standards, guidance on case preparation and measures to assist the police with early advice.

Mr. Flynn: If Ministers are not inclined to accept the accurate figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), will the Solicitor-General accept the House of Commons Library figures showing that, from 1980 to 1995, a period of unprecedented rising crime, the number of people appearing for sentence at Crown court went down from 14,300 to 3,400, which is disgraceful? The crime clear-up rate—the crucial factor—has gone down from 40 per cent. in 1980 to a mere 26 per cent. now. Is it not true that Conservative law and order policy is that the innocent are punished and suffer while the guilty run free?

The Solicitor-General: That is not true. The conviction rate in the magistrates court is 98 per cent. and in the Crown court is just over 90 per cent. The cases received by the Crown Prosecution Service from the police have fallen from 1.53 million in 1993 to 1.3 million in 1996. The police police and the prosecutors prosecute, but they can prosecute only those cases that are sent to them.

Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the use of information technology by the police is increasing the number of successful conclusions of cases? Does he believe that it would be a useful tool for the CPS? If so, what plans does the CPS have to use information technology to ensure that there are more successful prosecutions?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Information technology is a tool being increasingly used both within the CPS and in its relations with other criminal justice agencies. The case-handling computer system is now installed in 38 branches. By the end of the year, it will be installed in 57, including London. The e-mail system of transferring information is being piloted in Southampton and Ipswich and I shall be visiting Southampton within the next two weeks to see it in operation. I expect it to be considerably extended across the country within the coming months.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what further legislation he plans in the current parliamentary Session to expedite the work of the Crown Prosecution Service. [31639]

The Solicitor-General: Initiatives include co-ordinated police training to ensure early delivery of the right material to the Crown Prosecution Service and pilots to test the use of electronic mail between criminal justice agencies. None of those initiatives requires legislation.

Mr. Mackinlay: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman noticed that Question Time for him and the Attorney-General is unique, in that they do not attract the usual fawning and obsequious questions from Conservative Members? Is that not because there is widespread dismay about their stewardship of the Crown Prosecution Service and our justice system?
The common experience of Members of Parliament across the House is that the CPS is not performing and is not responsive and sensitive to those who feel that they are victims, and that there are inordinate delays and insufficient prosecutions pursued with vigour. Is it not time that something was done about that? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear it in mind that that is the view of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, as demonstrated by the fact that no support comes from those on the Benches behind him?

The Solicitor-General: Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Those hon. Members who go to their local branch of Crown prosecutors—they are few and far between, I regret to say—almost without exception come away very impressed with the professionalism, care, skill and dedication of the people who work in the CPS. Let that be known.

Mr. Sweeney: In order to expedite the work of the CPS, is it not absolutely essential to reduce the amount of paperwork and to improve relations between the CPS and the police? Would my hon. and learned Friend care to comment on those two matters?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I agree that it is. As I travel round the country or appear in court cases and speak to police officers at all levels, almost without exception they speak highly of the professionalism shown in their cases by the Crown Prosecution Service. Whenever possible, we are astute at reducing the paperwork involved in the preparation of cases. In the past 12 months, we have introduced a scheme to reduce paperwork in guilty pleas in the magistrates court, which should annually reduce the amount of paperwork by about 5 million pieces.

Death (Actions of A Corporation)

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases he has initiated legal proceedings where the actions of a corporation have led to the death of an individual in the past 10 years. [31640]

The Attorney-General: A corporation that commits a criminal act leading to the death of an individual may be prosecuted for a range of possible offences, depending on the circumstances of the case. The possible offences include manslaughter. The Crown Prosecution Service does not record statistics for different categories of defendant, but, in the past three years, there have been two prosecutions for manslaughter against corporations. The first of those resulted in a conviction of the company itself and the second in the conviction of its managing agent.

Mr. Cohen: Does that not show that the Attorney-General is soft on criminal companies? Has not the Law Commission said that there should be a new offence of corporate killing, which can be effectively enforced and have attached to it unlimited fines? Should there not also be prison sentences for dangerous bosses? Is it not about time that cowboy companies got the message that they will be held accountable for acts that are reckless, negligent and endanger lives?

The Attorney-General: The first answer is no, it shows no such thing. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of cases in which he thinks that there has been softness or in which there should have been a prosecution, no doubt he will let me know. I believe that such matters are vigorously prosecuted, and that those two cases show that the Crown Prosecution Service not only is prepared to prosecute corporations but, when it has done so, it has done so successfully.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996
Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996
London Regional Transport Act 1996
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996
Arbitration Act 1996
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Act 1996

Child Abuse (North Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about child abuse.
It has been known for several years now that very serious sexual and physical abuse of children took place in homes managed or supervised by the former Clwyd county council in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1991, North Wales police began an extensive investigation into allegations, and obtained just under 2,600 statements from individuals. Those resulted in eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Nevertheless, speculation has continued in north Wales that the actual abuse was on a much greater scale than those convictions suggest.
When I last reported to the House on this issue—in a written answer on 18 April—I expressed my regret that Clwyd county council, which had commissioned its own inquiry into these matters, had apparently failed to ensure that this would be undertaken in a way which would enable its conclusions to be publishable. I explained that I had written to the five successor authorities to Clwyd county council requesting that they seek urgently to produce a version of the report that could safely be published.
The successor authorities have subsequently informed me that they are unable to meet that request. In their view, the report is likely to contain evidence that was given in confidence to the inquiry team, and is in any case so seriously and extensively defamatory that an acceptable version of it cannot be produced.
In the light of my own legal advice, I have considered whether I could make the report as it stands available to the House. I have concluded that, in view of the nature of the defamation it contains, it would not be a proper use of parliamentary privilege to do so.
I find this a deeply unsatisfactory outcome, and one that reflects badly on the former Clwyd county council. It devoted two years and a substantial amount of public money to an inquiry, the report of which cannot safely be published. When public authorities establish investigations, they should do so in a way which, at the very least, permits the principal findings and recommendations to be made public.
One factor in the failure of Clwyd county council to publish the report it commissioned was a concern about the implications of publishing for its insurance cover. This also seems to me to be an unsatisfactory situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I will be considering, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether there is a need for guidance on this matter.
The Government's main priority remains to do everything necessary to secure the safety and well-being of children in care. It was for that reason that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), appointed Miss Nicola Davies QC in May 1995 to undertake an examination of relevant documents and to advise whether a public inquiry into the abuse of children in north Wales was required. She recommended not an inquiry but that a detailed examination of the practices and procedures of the social

service departments in the former Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils and of the private homes in their areas be undertaken. I appointed Adrianne Jones to carry out this work.
Adrianne Jones has now produced her report. I am grateful to her and to her team for the way in which they have undertaken their task, the thoroughness of their report and the speed with which it has been produced. I am also grateful to all those in north Wales who have co-operated fully in this work. I have arranged for it to be published in full today, and have made copies available in the Libraries of both Houses.
In her report, Adrianne Jones found that, since 1991, when the Children Act 1989 was implemented, the substantial advice, guidance and regulation available to social services authorities had resulted in a progressive tightening of operational, management and personnel procedures in the Gwynedd and Clwyd county councils. There was a framework of policies and procedures in place. However, there were some significant gaps: the authorities were not sufficiently rigorous in developing their own operational guidelines, and did not ensure that these were followed systematically.
The report contains a total of 41 recommendations. Most are directed at the successor local authorities, and are aimed at improving the planning, management and monitoring of children's services. I accept the thrust of Adrianne Jones's conclusions, and mean to ensure that her recommendation for more resources to be devoted to the social services inspectorate for Wales is acted upon as soon as possible. I shall be reporting to the House shortly on how I propose to take all her recommendations forward.
Adrianne Jones's report will make a substantial contribution towards achieving my objective of securing the safety and well-being of children in care in north Wales, but it also reveals that, despite the Children Act, the Warner report and all the other actions that the Government have taken in recent years to protect children, serious shortcomings remained up until the abolition of Clwyd and Gwynedd county councils earlier this year. This is a disturbing conclusion, which has to be coupled with continuing public concern about the full extent of what happened and how it could apparently have continued undetected for so long.
The Government are determined that there should be no cover-up of events in the past, and that every possible step is taken to protect children in care in the future. In the light of these developments, we have decided that further initiatives need to be undertaken.
First, we decided that there should be a judicial inquiry. The terms of reference of this would be: to inquire into the abuse of children in care in the former county council areas of Gwynedd and Clwyd since 1974; to examine whether the agencies and authorities responsible for such care, through the placement of the children or through the regulation or management of the facilities, could have prevented the abuse or detected its occurrence at an earlier stage; to examine the response of the relevant authorities and agencies to allegations and complaints of abuse made either by children in care, children formerly in care or any other persons, excluding scrutiny of decisions whether to prosecute named individuals; in the light of this examination, to consider whether the relevant caring and investigative agencies discharged their functions


appropriately and, in the case of the caring agencies, whether they are doing so now; and to report its findings and to make recommendations to me.
The inquiry will be conducted within the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, and both Houses will be asked to approve the necessary resolution when it is moved tomorrow. I intend to invite Sir Ronald Waterhouse to be its chairman. His experience makes him ideal for the task. He has already indicated that he would be prepared to accept such an invitation, and I shall discuss with him a target date for the completion of this work.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has responsibility for children's issues in England, is also arranging for a further review of the safeguards against the abuse of children living away from home in England and Wales. It will be conducted by Sir William Utting, the former chief social services inspector at the Department of Health. He will be asked to review the safeguards introduced for England and Wales by the Children Act 1989 at its implementation in 1991 and the further measures taken since to protect children living away from home, with particular reference to children's residential homes, foster care and boarding schools; and to assess whether those safeguards are the most effective that can realistically be designed to protect such children from abuse and other harm, and whether they are being satisfactorily enforced. My right hon. Friend is informing the House of the details of that review in a written answer today. Sir William will report to my right hon. Friend and me, and his report will be published.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. Consideration will be given to his recommendations with a view to implementation as appropriate in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be keeping in touch with the progress of Sir William Utting's review. He will also set up an audit of the arrangements for the care and protection of children in Scotland who are looked after away from home.
Additionally, a White Paper entitled "Crime and Punishment", published today, proposes enhanced monitoring and supervision of all offenders on release from custody in Scotland. Under those arrangements, all high-risk offenders may be subject to an extended period of supervision on release. It is probable that a large majority of sex offenders will be included in that category. Further, a proposed Crown right of appeal against a decision of the court not to impose a supervision order in a particular case provides an additional safeguard.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is also publishing today a consultation paper on sex offenders. It outlines proposals designed to improve the protection of the public from, and to enhance opportunities for the treatment of, such offenders.
There are five main proposals: to strengthen the arrangements for supervising convicted sex offenders; to require sex offenders to notify the police of their address and any subsequent changes to it; to extend the power in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to enable samples to be taken for the purposes of DNA testing from convicted sex offenders who are serving a prison sentence imposed before that power came into place; to introduce provisions to prohibit sex offenders from seeking

employment involving access to children; and to limit the access of defendants to victims' statements and photographs in sexual offence cases.
The child abuse that was allowed to occur in north Wales, and the apparent failure of the authorities concerned to deal with it, represents a very sad chapter in the history of public child care. The Adrianne Jones report helps to point the way for the future, but its conclusions will reinforce public concerns about the management of children in care in north Wales. The proposals that the Government are announcing today—a judicial inquiry into the events in north Wales, the review by Sir William Utting and the increased supervision of sex offenders after release from prison—demonstrate the determination of the Government and the House to tackle the evil of child abuse and to secure the safety of all children in care.

Mr. Ron Davies: I welcome the belated statement from the Secretary of State, and pledge the unqualified support of the Labour party for the fullest possible inquiry into the extent of child abuse in north Wales.
For more than a decade and a half, hundreds of allegations have been made by children that they have been the victims of organised sexual abuse. Dozens of lives have been wrecked, and a least a dozen have been lost. Young people who, by the nature of their circumstances, were at their most vulnerable have been exploited, abused and violated. Those young people were brutalised by the individuals charged with their care, and let down collectively by the agencies charged with their care.
Does the Secretary of State understand that his attempts at the Tory party conference last weekend to score party political points on the issue will be viewed with utter contempt by those courageous individuals who, over the years, have been trying unsuccessfully to prompt his Department into action?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department promised a public inquiry nearly four years ago, and will he join me now in commending the campaign of politicians in Wales—prominent among them Malcolm King, the former chair of Clwyd social services committee—senior police officers, the public and the media on finally forcing the Government to honour their promise? Does he understand that his criticism last weekend of Clwyd county council's Jillings inquiry is without a shred of justification? Will he confirm that that inquiry was, as it should have been, independent of the authority? Will he confirm that the terms of reference of that inquiry were agreed with his Department? Will he also confirm that Welsh Office Ministers have over the years consistently refused to meet representatives of Clwyd county council to determine the best way forward?
Given the Secretary of State's criticism today of the Jillings inquiry, why is he only considering that guidelines will be necessary to overcome the difficulty of publishing without insurance cover? Surely that case has been established, and it is his responsibility to ensure not whether but how that new policy should be implemented.
We have not yet had the opportunity to read the Jones report. When we have, we shall support the matters that we believe to be relevant. The great fear must be, however, that the local authorities to which it refers have


been abolished. I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek refuge in bolting that stable door after the horse has gone.
Now that our demand for an inquiry has been met, will the Secretary of State clarify the following matters of detail? Will he confirm that the inquiry will be fully independent, that there will be no unnecessary in camera sessions, and that there will be full publication of the report and all supporting documents? Will he explain why Sir Ronald Waterhouse will report to him, whereas the Utting review will be published? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to publish the Utting review but not the Waterhouse report? If that is so, it will be unacceptable. I assure him that we all understand the importance of appropriate confidentiality, but, given the nature of the inquiry, the public interest in disclosure must outweigh the private interest in confidentiality.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to examine the whole question of organised child abuse? The allegations centre on a former local authority children's home network. Does he accept that the nature of the allegations indicates the possible existence of a wider paedophile network, extending throughout society and into its most powerful reaches?
Will the inquiry be empowered to examine the role played by North Wales police, especially the allegations that files relating to child abuse in Gwynedd have disappeared? Will legal representation be available for child complainants, and will legal aid be available to them and to adults who may need legal representation? Will the inquiry be allowed to review the operations of the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales? Perhaps it will be empowered to consider that one individual is alleged to have decided that, in respect of hundreds of allegations in Gwynedd, prosecutions would not have been in the public interest.
There is widespread public interest and concern at the complacency of the Welsh Office over the years. Will the inquiry therefore have full access to all Welsh Office documents? In particular, will it be able to examine the circumstances in which successive Welsh Office Ministers—some still in the House—over many years wrote to Alison Taylor, a respected former social worker from Gwynedd, assuring her that, in their words,
there are no grounds for concern".
Will the inquiry be able to examine the role of the Welsh Office social services inspectorate, to find out why, throughout the entire decade of the 1980s, while the allegations were emerging, it declined to investigate one allegation or carry out one inspection of any children's home in Clwyd? If the answer to those questions is not yes, the Government will inevitably face the allegation that they are conspiring in a further whitewash.
I am happy to see the proposals for the welcome review, and for the Home Secretary to review the procedures that deal with sex offenders. When we have had a chance to examine the detailed proposals, we will respond.
Will the Secretary of State accept the Opposition's ruthless determination to ensure the fullest scrutiny of all procedures concerning the care of vulnerable children? No one, however powerful or high and mighty, should be

allowed to escape the consequences of their actions. For us, the matter is above party political considerations. I hope that he understands now that it should be for him as well.

Mr. Hague: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the thrust of my statement. There are only two points about which I would seek to argue with him. I do not think that it is a belated announcement. He should recognise, as I hope he has, that, if the Jillings report had turned out to be a sound report that could have been published, and if the Adrianne Jones report had suggested that in recent years all necessary procedures and practices were correct and had been put in place, the case for an inquiry would have been weaker. Those two matters have crystallised only in the past 10 days.
The other point about which I disagree is the hon. Gentleman's accusation that we have made party political points. I agree that the matter should be above party politics, and I am not aware of having made any criticism at all of Opposition Members or their parties. I am not aware of having made any party political points. I certainly do not intend to make any, and I am glad that he does not, now that he has got that off his chest.
I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman on all or most of his detailed questions, Yes, it will be a fully independent inquiry. Under the terms of the Act under which such inquiries are set up, there can be private sessions, although they are encouraged to be held extremely rarely. It would be for the judge to decide whether it was in the interest of the inquiry, and in the public interest, to hold some sessions in private. One can imagine that, in some situations involving children, that could be desirable.
I intend that the report will be published. I believe that the terms of reference are drawn sufficiently widely, and they cover the police. The inquiry can examine the conduct of the police. It can consider the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service, but not decisions about the prosecution of named individuals. That is a long tradition in such matters, designed to defend the independence of the prosecuting authorities. However, any new information could be passed to the prosecuting authorities.
Legal representation will be available to witnesses appearing before the inquiry. It will be free to investigate the work of the Welsh Office and the social services inspectorate in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman has requested. I hope that, with those assurances, he will agree that it is a widely drawn inquiry that will be able to get at the truth, as all hon. Members are most determined that it should.

Sir Roger Sims: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Roger Sims: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the House.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement, the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and the other measures to which he has referred, will be warmly welcomed by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, of which I am a member? The considerable


body of evidence that the commission has received shows that the abuse of children in institutions is a widespread and continuing problem. It is part of the wider issue of child abuse, because the adults involved are members of community as a whole.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while inquiries and reports are necessary, it is essential that, thereafter, measures should be implemented to ensure the prevention of further abuse and to wipe out this scourge of our society?

Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the announcements. I congratulate him on his elevation at the weekend.
The fears of which my hon. Friend speaks are part of the justification for the announcements. I absolutely agree that it is important for measures to be implemented where they are necessary. I will proceed, as I said in my statement, to implement measures recommended in the Adrianne Jones report speedily, without waiting for the results of the public inquiry.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be eager to implement measures arising from the review that he has set in train, and that he would like to see it conducted as speedily as possible for that to happen.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir R. Sims).
I welcome the appointment of Sir Ronald Waterhouse as chairman of the judicial inquiry. His wide experience, and his close knowledge of north Wales, will prove to be great advantages. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in carrying out the inquiry, Sir Ronald will be free to make recommendations about the way in which, and the resources with which, the police investigate allegations of child abuse, particularly in smaller police forces such as the North Wales police, in which, generally speaking, there are limited resources for special inquiries?
Can the Secretary of State also confirm that it will be possible for Sir Ronald to look at the nature of the institutions in which often vulnerable children are placed, as demonstrated by the evidence that emerges in the courts when prosecutions are started many years later? Can he also confirm that it will be possible for witnesses at the Waterhouse inquiry, many of whom are now adults leading ordinary lives, many of them married with children, to have anonymity in terms of public identification?

Mr. Hague: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right about Sir Ronald Waterhouse. His origins in north Wales, his knowledge of that area and his experience in the criminal division and the family division of the High Court make him ideally suited to this task, and I am delighted that he has agreed to take it on. He can indeed look into procedures and behaviour, if that seems appropriate, in the course of his inquiry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's question about privacy for witnesses raises the point to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies): that there may be instances of the inquiry wishing to arrange matters to protect the privacy of witnesses, and to do so, as far as it can, without

compromising the publicity that should rightly be given to these proceedings and to the public interest in them. The hon. and learned Gentleman can be satisfied on that point.

Mr. Rod Richards: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and I particularly congratulate the Government on their decision to hold a judicial inquiry into child abuse in north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for those people who may have been or were abused many years ago, and who are now adults and may have families of their own? To have their pasts raked over, whether in public or in private, would be an extremely painful experience. What protection and what measures are in place for such people, who do not want to revisit the horror of their past?

Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. Of course, he took a close interest in these matters during his time in government. The question he raises is one of the factors that we have had to bear in mind and weigh against the wider public interest and the need for a public inquiry. As I said in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I hope that, where necessary, the inquiry will be able to find a way to protect privacy, while also satisfying the public interest and ensuring that all information that should be made public is made public.

Mr. Martyn Jones: While welcoming the inquiry almost wholeheartedly, I have to say that my colleagues in Clwyd have been calling for one for a long time. We have been aware of the kind of abuse that is happening. One of my constituents came to my surgery and described the kind of things that went on. They are horrendous—there is no other way of describing them—and I am delighted that we are now to look at this matter. Although these matters are historical—

Hon. Members: Question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a sensitive matter, but the hon. Gentleman must put his question, as he has not yet done so.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the inquiry takes place with all speed concomitant with getting the truth? Although the cases are historical, the people involved are still suffering hurt. Does he acknowledge that Clwyd county council was not at fault, in that it tried to get a judicial inquiry for the benefit of the people affected? Although the Jillings report may have been flawed, at least it tried to get the facts into the open. I am glad that the judicial inquiry will now do that.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman has called for an inquiry before, and we have discussed it before. Had other investigations been carried out to general public satisfaction—in that their reports were published and were seen to deal with the matter—and had the Adrianne Jones report revealed that procedures in recent years had been satisfactory, there would have been a weaker case for a public inquiry.
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about speed, and how that must be balanced with the need to look into the matters properly. In consultation with Sir Ronald


Waterhouse, I intend to set a target date for the completion of the inquiry, and I do not want to do so in an arbitrary way today. In the meantime, we will proceed to implement the recommendations of the Adrianne Jones report. The report of the inquiry will be in addition to that report, rather than instead of it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must safeguard the remainder of today's business, and the House will understand if I now ask for brisk questions from Members and brisk answers from the Minister.

Sir Wyn Roberts: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he was absolutely right to decide to hold this inquiry, which was inevitable following the failure of the local authority to publish the fillings report because of possible defamation? The judicial inquiry is necessary as a result of the Adrianne Jones report, which looked into the situation following the implementation of the Children Act in 1991 and found it inadequate. Does he agree that Adrianne Jones deserves our thanks for her work and her recommendations, including her recommendation to strengthen the inspectorate at the Welsh Office?

Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend is right to say that we should be grateful to Adrianne Jones for her efficient and speedy work. He highlights one of her recommendations, and I will be acting upon it quickly.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is no more foul crime than the abuse of children, and that those who commit it continue to do so because they rely on secrecy? Is he aware of my question on the Order Paper today that asks for a public inquiry into the situation in Cheshire? For more than two years, I have been asking the Home Office to make public information about convicted paedophiles. Is he aware that it takes 10 months for anyone to get information before they employ someone in a children's home? Is it not likely that these people are still operating within the child care system?

Mr. Hague: The hon. Lady's fears are part of the reason for the measures that I have announced, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I share her concerns. Investigations are continuing and prosecutions pending in Cheshire, and it is important that they are not prejudiced by Government action. That is why the inquiry that I have announced is concerned with Clwyd and Gwynedd.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unforgivable for children to be taken into care, and then not be properly cared for? Will the Government ensure that there are no more cover-ups, not just in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom? If the problem is as widespread as has been thought, is there a target date for Sir William Utting to report?

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. There should be no cover-up of any description. We all want action to be

taken as speedily as possible. It will be for Sir William Utting to determine the timetable of his review, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and that decision needs to be taken as quickly as possible.

Dr. John Marek: The Secretary of State did the right thing this afternoon, and I believe that the people of north Wales will thank him for it. I have three short questions. First, will he assure us that the Jillings report will be made available to the inquiry? Secondly, will he assure us that, should any evidence or any matters before the inquiry concern matters relating to Cheshire, if they cannot be considered by this inquiry they will at least be passed on to the relevant authorities in Cheshire? Thirdly, he says that the inquiry will be unable to consider aspects of decisions by the CPS whether to prosecute individual people; can he assure the House that that exclusion will be drawn quite tightly?

Mr. Hague: Yes, the Jillings report will be made available to the inquiry. Information relating to other parts of the United Kingdom will, of course, be passed on to the relevant authorities. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to interpret relatively tightly the exclusion that we have placed in the terms of reference. The rationale for that is the importance of finality and fairness to potential defendants and victims and witnesses, but it does not mean that the generality of the work of the Crown Prosecution Service is beyond the scope of the inquiry.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I add my welcome to my right hon. Friend's statement about this horrendous affair? He mentioned various reports that would be made to various Ministers and Secretaries of State. During his important statement, he did not once mention co-ordination or co-operation between Secretaries of State and Ministers in the study of those reports, or the commitment of those Ministers and Secretaries of State to draw what lessons they could from other reports from other parts of the United Kingdom. Can he reassure the House that that will happen?

Mr. Hague: I think I can reassure my hon. Friend—and he will see from the fact that my right hon. Friends and I have all announced this today—that we have been working on this range of measures together, and we shall of course continue to study this subject in close co-operation.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I assure the Secretary of State that the welcome he has received from both sides of the House for his decision to hold a judicial inquiry also extends to my party? We want that inquiry to be set up quickly, and we extend our congratulations on the appointment of Sir Ronald Waterhouse as its chairman.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that many of the young people, who are now adults, who had so many painful experiences have had to recount those experiences countless times in recent years? He made a clear, categorical statement that there should be no cover-up. Will he reinforce that? Those young people must go through another very painful experience. They have


campaigned long and hard for this judicial inquiry; they need to be satisfied that it will be full, and that the Government will act on its full recommendations.

Mr. Hague: I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Gentleman gives on his behalf and that of his party. Obviously, I share his determination that the inquiry should be full and independent, and that everyone should be able to see clearly that there has not been, and cannot be, a cover-up in the light of the inquiry's work. That unites hon. Members in all parts of the House today.

Mr. Anthony Steen: As judges can ban from keeping animals people who are found guilty of cruelty, and bearing in mind the fact that people leaving prison after serving a term for sex offences can open a home or holiday camp for children that very day, did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that those who are found guilty of sex offences towards children will be banned for all time from employment with children? If we can do it for animals, we can do it for children.

Mr. Hague: To clarify for my hon. Friend, I said that, in the Home Secretary's consultation document, he would propose to introduce provisions to prohibit sex offenders from seeking employment involving access to children. I believe that that gets at the point my hon. Friend raises. Further details can be found in the consultation document, and any further decisions or legislation will depend on the reaction to it.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents were in so-called care at Bryn Estyn? They are asking the following questions: how can an insurance company dictate whether a report is published simply because of possible liabilities? Why did the Welsh Office, over 20 years, take such a laid-back attitude when it knew what was going on? Was it to protect public and political figures? If so, will they now be named?

Mr. Hague: I share the hon. Lady's concerns about the insurance situation, as she will have gathered from my statement. I am currently discussing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The actions of the Welsh Office—as is the case for all public authorities and institutions—will be open to investigation by the inquiry. We should not prejudge the results of that inquiry today.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend recall the outcome of the inquiries that took place in the aftermath of the Orkney and Cleveland scandals? I feel quite nervous about the format that my right hon. Friend has proposed. When this format has been used in the past, and when local bureaucracies have been challenged by inquiries, no individual has been responsible for anything within those bureaucracies—no one was sacked, called to task or held responsible.
In the light of those inquiries, will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that accountability in these inquiries will mean that people who have been incompetent or plain evil will be sacked or prosecuted? Accountability must come from individual accountability for actions. We do

not want to hear about practices, procedures, guidelines and resources. The inquiry has to find people who did wrong.

Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right: we want to see accountability. It is a challenge for any inquiry of this kind, and for any of us dealing with these matters, to penetrate bureaucratic indifference or collective responsibility. However, I hope that the inquiry will seek to do that. There have already been a number of prosecutions—and there may be further prosecutions if new evidence comes to light. I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said.

Mrs. Llin Golding: As a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, I am sure that the Minister is aware of its deep concern about the lack of protection for children in this country. Will the Utting review look at children when they leave care so that fewer of them end up on the streets as prostitutes? Will his statement enable the legal system to be looked at so that children can give evidence against paedophiles—who can then go to court, so that they can be charged and so we know who they are?

Mr. Hague: I can satisfy the hon. Lady on her second point. I am not sure whether her first point falls within the scope of the Utting review, but my right hon. Friend or I will be happy to clarify it, and to write to her about it.

Mr. David Hanson: I join my fellow former Clwyd Members of Parliament in welcoming the inquiry. First, will the Secretary of State say when Clwyd county council first asked for a judicial inquiry? Secondly, when did the social services inspectorate in the Welsh Office bring these matters to his attention? Thirdly, does he intend to have any discussions with the named chair and judge involved in the inquiry with regard to possible press coverage and the damaging effects that it may have on the victims of the abuse?

Mr. Hague: Yes, I should like to discuss the latter point with the judge who will be conducting the inquiry—although it will be for him to use his judgment on it. As many hon. Members have said, we want to see legitimate public interest in these matters satisfied, but we want necessary privacy maintained. The local authorities believe that there should be a public inquiry—they have put that view to the Welsh Office over the past few months, and I have taken it into account in reaching this decision. I cannot remember the precise date of the discussions offhand. I have been aware of these matters since I entered the Welsh Office.

Ms Ann Coffey: I welcome the Utting review of procedures in children's homes and fostering agencies. As the Secretary of State will know, however, the Government have already issued a consultation document entitled "Moving Forward" to look into the registration and inspection of such homes and agencies—a key protection issue. Although the consultation was completed in February, no Government proposals have been forthcoming as a result.
Does today's announcement mean that that consultation will be put on the back burner, and that we shall now have to wait for months for the current review and for the


Government to act on some of the problems—particularly those of unregistrable small children's homes—of which they are aware, and on which action is urgently needed?

Mr. Hague: No. The Utting review is assuredly not intended to delay work that has already been set in train. Indeed, the scope of that work was designed partly to take into account work already in progress, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is eager to advance.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Have all those who were accused of child abuse, and named in witness statements revealed in the appendices to the Jillings report, been prosecuted? If some have not, and some names remain, are any of those people still working with children anywhere in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hague: I understand that not everyone named in a statement was prosecuted. Several hundred cases were referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, and there have been seven convictions; 2,600 statements were taken. I do not know where the current employment of any of those people is.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Is the Secretary of State aware that, for some two or three decades, similar allegations have been made in Northern Ireland about the Kincora boys home? Can he confirm that the Utting review will be able to examine those allegations in the same way as the Waterhouse inquiry is examining the allegations in north Wales?

Mr. Hague: No. The Utting review is not concerned with past allegations; it is concerned with a review of the legal framework. As I explained in my statement, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will keep in close touch with the review in order to consider what measures should be taken in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State congratulate those sections of the media—including HTV Wales and Private Eye—which, courageously and at great cost to themselves, exposed the abuse that we now know to have taken place in north Wales?
Is not one of the main problems the fact that, in court cases, those who have been abused are poor witnesses in their own interests? Their experiences of being in care have led them to a position in which their truthfulness is often questioned, while the accused are often experienced witnesses because of their profession. Will the Secretary of State, as a parallel measure, accept the recommendations of the NSPCC, which is now asking for improvements in the way in which court cases are conducted when vulnerable young people are involved?

Mr. Hague: I have already explained that legal representation will be available to witnesses in the inquiry. I know that the judge conducting the inquiry, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, will want to consider how best to help people who may feel inhibited in giving evidence.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland's watching brief. Is there not a particular need to pay close attention to the, admittedly small, number of children who, when placed in care, are sent from one country to another within the United Kingdom? Several years ago, the children of a family living in the west of Scotland were sent to a home in the north-east of England, owned and managed by a religious order, where they were systematically abused. Is it the case that a social worker working with such a family has ready and unannounced access to such homes in England and Wales, or in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hague: I will certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I believe that it can also be considered as part of the work that we have announced today.

Mr. John Gunnell: In the light of the events that led to the inquiry and of Dunblane, have the Government finally abandoned their plans to deregulate the vetting of those who work with young people in playgroups? Has any rule been proposed by the Utting review, or by the review that preceded it, on the inspection of homes for young people? If so, will it apply to homes in public and private ownership? Will the Utting review consider the value of registering residential care as an occupation, as part of the measures to introduce a general social services council?

Mr. Hague: The legal framework applies to public and private homes, so one would expect the Utting review to cover both. I have no new announcement to make on the other subjects.

Mr. David Jamieson: The Minister will be aware that, because of the operations of paedophiles in a minority of independent boarding schools, the Children Act 1989 made such schools' pastoral arrangements liable to inspection. Why, therefore, did the Government pass a deregulation measure allowing those schools to dispense with social services departments and appoint their own lighter-touch inspectors? Is this an example of deregulation potentially placing children at risk?

Mr. Hague: No. The Government's intention to date has been to focus on problems where they clearly exist, or are thought to exist. The legal framework will be reviewed by Sir William Utting, who I know will want to bear in mind a wide variety of points.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: We welcome today's announcement of a judicial inquiry into events in north Wales, but does the Secretary of State accept that the need to co-ordinate the different actions now proposed—the Waterhouse judicial inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman has announced, the Utting review that the Secretary of State for Health is announcing and the Home Secretary's review of sentencing and probation procedure for paedophiles—is paramount?
Will he forgive me if I suggest that the impression given by Ministers in the past few days—going back to last Thursday's Prime Minister's questions—has been of their almost competing with one another for the limelight


rather than co-operating, as suggested by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone)? Will he acknowledge that, without careful co-ordination, there is a danger of interdepartmental cross-sterilisation, if I may call it that, between the different inquiries?
Does the Minister accept that our residential child care system is now on trial? These children's homes were supposed to provide care: instead, they dished out a diet of sadism by day and sodomy by night. If this tragedy is not to be repeated, it must be followed not by more inquiries but by action.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of co-ordination. My announcements today have been co-ordinated between all the Departments concerned, and the continuing work of all Departments will be co-ordinated. He is also right to emphasise the importance of action. The Government have taken a wide range of action in recent years to improve the legal framework as it relates to children.
Where reports such as the Adrianne Jones report, which is published today, recommend action, we shall not be long in taking it. I intend to carry that forward speedily.I welcome the hon. Gentleman's general words of welcome and the reaction of hon. Members. We shall take forward this work with great seriousness and all possible speed.

FAMILY LAW BILL [LORDS] [MONEY] (NO. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Family Law Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in connection with the provision of marriage counselling.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to

Orders of the Day — Family Law Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 13

PROVISION OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING

'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor or a person appointed by him may secure the provision, in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, of marriage counselling.

(2) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section at a time when a period for reflection and consideration—
(a) is running in relation to the marriage; or
(b) is interrupted under section 7(8) (but not for a continuous period of more than 18 months).

(3) Marriage counselling may only be provided under this section for persons who would not be required to make any contribution towards the cost of mediation provided for them under Part IIIA of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

(4) Persons for whom marriage counselling is provided under this section are not to be required to make any contribution towards the cost of the counselling.

(5) Marriage counselling is only to be provided under this section if it appears to the marriage counsellor to be suitable in all the circumstances.

(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) make provision about the way in which marriage counselling is to be provided; and
(b) prescribe circumstances in which the provision of marriage counselling is to be subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor.

(7) A contract entered into for the purposes of subsection (1) by a person appointed under that subsection must include such provision as the Lord Chancellor may direct.

(8) If the person appointed under subsection (1) is the Legal Aid Board, the powers conferred on the Board by or under the Legal Aid Act 1988 shall be exercisable for the purposes of this section as they are exercisable for the purposes of that Act.

(9) In section 15 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (availability of, and payment for, representation under Part IV of the Act), after subsection (3H) insert—
(3I) A person may be refused representation for the purposes of any proceedings if—
(a) the proceedings are marital proceedings within the meaning of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996; and
(b) he is being provided with marriage counselling under section (Provision of marriage counselling) of that Act in relation to the marriage.".'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18, 104 and 52.

Mr. Streeter: I start where I should start—with a fulsome tribute to my immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans),


whose stewardship of the Bill was exemplary and who was largely responsible for its strengthening in Committee.
The amendments respond to concern that couples should be encouraged to access marriage counselling and other marriage support services that may help a couple to save their marriage. There has been cross-party support for such amendments, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for seeking to ensure that those amendments are based on voluntary access to services rather than compulsion—which we and the marriage support services believe is likely to generate more effective referrals and a better chance of counselling proving successful.
I pay tribute to the various organisations that comprise the marriage support services not only for their advice during consultation and in preparing the legislation, but for all that they do in supporting couples in crisis. Marriage support services make a major contribution to the well-being of society, for which the House thanks them.
The Government are committed to providing a system that gives couples information, access to services and time to consider whether their marriage can be saved—and to ensuring the best possible use of available resources. The amendments go further than any previous Government have in providing support for marriage.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to give explicit force to that commitment, by stating that the parties to a marriage that has broken down will be encouraged to take all practicable steps to save it by counselling or otherwise. The importance of counselling is thus given explicit emphasis, but is not to be regarded as exclusive. The Government are endeavouring to provide the basis for a continuum of information and services for couples at all stages in their relationship. That provision will cover not only couples who may, sadly, be considering divorce, but couples who are deciding to marry, as well as assistance early during a problem in a marriage—before the difficulty becomes a crisis.
Considerable concern has been expressed in debate about adequate attention being given to the funding of measures that seek to prevent a couple's relationship difficulties reaching the stage at which they consider divorce. Amendment No. 52 requires the Lord Chancellor to have particular regard to such services when making grant-in-aid payments for marriage support services and research.

Mr. Tony Marlow: There is an implication that such services will cost money. How much will they cost, and where will that money come from?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that the Government do not believe that a problem will go away by throwing money at it. I am sure that he agrees that investing in healthy marriages will save the country money in the long term. Bearing it in mind that the legislation will not come into force for two years, we do not yet know precisely what the take-up will be, but it is important to invest in strong and stable marriages.
Such services could include marriage preparation initiatives, work at major turning points in a couple's relationship, such as the birth of a first child,

and information about services provided at places where people might otherwise go for information, so that take-up of marriage support services can be encouraged. That provision will support the work of the interdepartmental working party—not a glamorous title, but an important project that has highlighted early intervention as a priority. The working party has today issued a consultation paper on how best to deliver those services. The results of that consultation will inform the funding of pilot projects that have particular potential for reducing the incidence and costs of marriage breakdown. We have also announced that research will be undertaken into the problems faced by couples at different stages in their relationship, so that we can match services to need more effectively—which will involve funding additional to existing grant-in-aid provision.
Clause 8, which concerns the information meeting, already specifies that information must be given to couples about counselling and support services. It provides for couples eligible for non-contributory legal aid to be encouraged to take up an explanatory meeting with a marriage counsellor. The amendment seeks to ensure that such meetings will be held with suitably qualified staff and that standards can be set and maintained. The amendment enables the circumstances in which such meetings are held to be prescribed, to ensure that the funding for such meetings is used appropriately—that there is value for money.
New clause 13 is designed to encourage the take-up of marriage counselling during the period of reflection and consideration. Such a service would be voluntarily entered into. The information meeting will ensure that couples are aware of such services and will be encouraged to access them where they may be of assistance, but the Government do not believe that such a service will be effective if it is compulsory. That view is shared by marriage counselling services.
The amendments ensure that service standards can be set and maintained, by giving the Lord Chancellor, or a person appointed by him, the power to attach conditions to the funding of marriage counselling. That may include standards of training or other qualifications. I should emphasise that such services will be focused on marriage counselling and not on any other form of counselling that does not have the couple's possible reconciliation as a primary objective. That service will be supported by additional funding. Before the arrangements are finalised, such arrangements will be piloted extensively, to ensure that the service is effective and that standards can be assured.
The amendments provide a structure that is designed to support strong and stable marriages. In this country, there has never been such a framework to support marriage and I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr. Paul Boateng: Labour Members welcome the Government's conversion, albeit relatively late in the day, to the view that marriage guidance and counselling, and establishing a framework within which that might take place, are important. When I look at Conservative Members and my hon. Friends around me, I recall the Second Reading debate, when some of us expressed regret that the Government had, at that time, missed an opportunity to set the Bill and the debate on it within the context of what the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume, has described as the


larger project of supporting and strengthening the institution of marriage and of the family. It has, therefore, been the task of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that considered the Bill to seek to focus the minds of the Minister's predecessor and of the Government on the importance of establishing the framework, to which the Minister referred.
The framework has been established. A place has been found for marriage guidance, counselling and a specific focus on reconciliation. Concern remains, and with good cause. One sees whence that cause emanates when one bears in mind the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). Concern remains about the commitments on resources in this sector. Without clear, adequate funding guarantees, there is no way in which it will be possible for organisations such as Marriage Care, Relate and others, to which I pay tribute and which are doing valuable work in this sector, to contribute to the success of any such framework. We want the Minister to give, in no uncertain terms, that guarantee to establish the initial infrastructure, without which information meetings encouraging people to move towards reconciliation, where it is appropriate, will be of little avail. We want a clear commitment that that infrastructure will be established, but, more than that, at this stage of our deliberations, we want the Government to come clean about the cost.
At the outset of the consideration of the Bill—both here and in the other place—the claim was made that it was cost neutral. Some of us have made it crystal clear that that simply cannot be the case. There is no way in which the Bill, either as it was originally constituted or as it is now—it has improved in some respects, and the Government amendments show one particular area of improvement—can be funded within the existing budget.
We shall shortly be required to make a decision not simply on this new clause, but on the future of the Bill. There is no way that we can do that on Third Reading without at least some guidance on costs from the Minister and a clear sign that the Government no longer hold to the absurd proposition that the Bill is cost neutral. We want to hear from the Minister—indeed, we are entitled to hear—in quite unequivocal terms how much he thinks this measure will cost and whether he has moved away from the position taken by his predecessor and the Lord Chancellor, that the Bill is cost neutral.
In the context of this group of amendments, the Opposition are sceptical about the clarity and depth of commitment to reconciliation and to the saving of marriages that can be saved. Unless the Minister can give the necessary guidance on costs, that scepticism will be entirely justified, because we shall not see the resources necessary to give these amendments the force and power that are vital if they are to achieve that which they set out to achieve.
With that caveat—and it is a real caveat—we broadly welcome the new clause and associated amendments.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome this group of amendments, not least because they are the result of a commitment given to me in Committee by the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). Therefore, I would be extremely churlish if I did not welcome them. They are extremely important amendments that will

markedly improve the Bill. All along, one of our objections to the Bill has been that it seemed simply to oil the wheels of divorce. We thought it terribly important to ensure that in the new divorce process—which will be based not on fault, but on a period of time elapsing—there was some encouragement towards marriage counselling. We have achieved that aim, and the necessary important provision will be included in the preamble to the Bill.
We achieved that concession early during the Committee's proceedings. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for what he said in Committee, because, without his support, it would have been impossible to achieve a majority and so encourage the previous Minister to accede to the amendments. It was rather more of a struggle to achieve funding for marriage guidance. I understand that, because the Lord Chancellor's Department had to clear it with the Treasury.
We have already achieved agreement that, after the initial information meeting, it will be possible for the parties to have a free meeting with a marriage counsellor. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly stated that there were some arguments about whether that requirement to see a marriage counsellor should be compulsory or voluntary. Originally, the hon. Member for Brent, South and I tabled amendments to make it compulsory. However, I accepted what the previous Minister told us—that marriage guidance counsellors did not want to be part of a compulsory mechanism, but wanted the entire process to be voluntary. What we have achieved is that when people go along to the information meeting—which will be a proper, one-to-one meeting—they will be at least encouraged to see a marriage counsellor, and that meeting will be free.
These latest Government amendments are significant achievements, because when the whole process starts and someone makes a statement of marital breakdown, the funding for marriage reconciliation will be on exactly the same basis as the funding for mediation.
Our concern has always been that some excellent organisations, such as Relate, which traditionally have been marriage guidance organisations, will ride in behind the Bill, because a huge new pot of gold will be poured into mediation, and that they will be encouraged to shift resources from marriage counselling—which we all support, but which has received a paltry £3 million a year—to mediation. There is nothing wrong with mediation if the divorce will definitely happen. It is better to have mediation than to have lawyers arguing about costs.
It would be wholly wrong if we had a market-driven approach that encouraged those organisations to put their resources into mediation rather than into marriage counselling. The amendments are terribly important, and I very much hope that they will be welcomed by marriage counselling organisations.
I welcome what the Minister said. Having heard the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, South in this—so far—short debate, I think that, in future, there may be cross-party support not only for a divorce Bill but for a marriage Bill. People in the Republic of Ireland must wait for a time before they are allowed to marry. Perhaps we should, as Cardinal Hume said, put as many resources into marriage and into encouraging marriage counselling at the beginning of the process as we are now putting into the end of the process, when it may be too late. That is for


the future. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing a marriage Bill in the next Session. It would be a very popular Bill.
It would be wrong to be churlish. It is a pity that we could not have achieved this extra money for marriage counselling before we had to consider the Bill—but this is the Bill that we have. I very much welcome what the Minister said today.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: These amendments represent a huge step forward by the Government. People who have worked in marriage counselling in the past know its value only too well. Like many other hon. Members, I have met local Relate groups and have heard how important they think counselling is. When I was first elected as a Member of Parliament, I took part with other hon. Members in a series of hearings about the family for the United Nations Year of the Family. We heard clearly how important it is to get in there and to give support at the early stages when things go wrong.
Therefore, like many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the Government's recognition of counselling. As has been said, that recognition is not before time. There have been many discussions and much pushing over this matter, and it is good to see cross-party support pushing the Government forward into a sensible position.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about costs. It is good to hear the Government talking about putting money towards the Bill, but I am worried that they have not considered the matter carefully. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's comments.
The Minister's earlier clarification that counselling will be voluntary is important, and it has been vital in achieving cross-party support. Certainly, the view of all those who work in this area is that we cannot force people into counselling, but that we must ensure that they have access to it and that they can afford it.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) talked about the importance of preparation for marriage. I should like us to give much more emphasis to marriage preparation in schools. Marriage preparation should be in the national curriculum, and I look forward to when that happens.
I welcome the provision, as do many of my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Dame Jill Knight: I have one or two questions about this matter. I am quite worried about where counsellors will come from. To my certain knowledge, in some areas, it is impossible to make an appointment with a marriage guidance counsellor in under a year. How will we find all these extra marriage guidance counsellors? Unless we know that they can be found, perhaps we are being a bit hypocritical in passing a law that says counsellors shall be there, as if one could spirit them out of the ether. I do not think that that is possible.
I have been worried about Relate ever since it decided that it was not so much interested in marriage, and dropped the term "marriage guidance" from its name. I have yet to be persuaded—I should very much like to be—that Relate

counsellors really are interested in ensuring that careful thought is given to the end of a marriage. I am not at all sure that Relate is so concerned, as are some hon. Members, about the institution of marriage.
If counsellors are to be spirited from the Church, I must admit that I should like to know a bit more about the clergy or their associates who may be giving advice. In recent years, there have been some rather extraordinary statements from Church people, who—even by example—do not always support and believe in marriage, in the manner that some of us would very much like.
4.45 pm
I strongly support the idea that we must do more in preparation for marriage. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was quite right that attention should be paid to that in schools. I should like it if we could have talks with the BBC, ITV and other parts of the media, which daily send the message that marriage no longer matters and that living with people is the acceptable thing to do. Youngsters watch television so carefully, and they take their pattern of life from it.
Before youngsters ever get to the point of marrying, there should be much more careful thought about how to show them that marriage is an aim of enormous importance to our country and to our society, and that it is not something that they can take on lightly. As has been said in another context, I would much rather have a fence at the top of a cliff than an ambulance at the bottom. I hope that attention will be paid to that most important fact.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Dealing with marriage counselling services is not quite as simple a matter as merely passing a few amendments in the House or even finding some money for it. The underlying problem lies in the great muddle and confusion in our society about the nature of marriage. I should have thought that the only way to make coherent proposals in legislation would have been for the genesis of the Bill to be a commission on marriage rather than a Law Commission report dealing with the processes of divorce.
Many questions are outstanding, such as how these counselling services will be provided, how the organisation will be developed and what concept of marriage—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said—will be presented. What about the undertakings in the register office ceremony? What will be the nature of those undertakings? Will counselling play any role in the preparation of such marriages? For marriages that take place in church, what will be the role of the Churches in preparing for marriage and in subsequent counselling services?
Having spoken to Church leaders, I do not think that Churches have thought out those questions, and I do not think that counselling services have thought them through at all—because they have not been asked the questions by the Government. They have not been asked, "Why are marriages breaking down, and what can be done about it?"
If we had started in that manner, we would have had a rather different Bill. But this is the Bill that we have—so what do we do about it? I unreservedly welcome the amendments, but I must tell the Minister that it will not


be quite such an easy matter. I hope that he will approach it in real depth when he considers how the organisations and the concept of marriage are to be developed properly.

Mr. John Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on tabling the new clause and related amendments. He has certainly hit the ground running since he assumed his new responsibilities.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who asked where the resources are to come from, which is a proper question to ask. I also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who asked where the counsellors are to come from. I should like to probe a little further and ask: who is to counsel the counsellors? Who is to safeguard the standards of counselling available under the Bill?
First, I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what mechanisms the Lord Chancellor's Department, under the guidance of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, intends to set up within the Department to screen the counselling organisations and counsellors, whether paid or voluntary. Of course, I pay tribute to the many voluntary counsellors, especially those from Church organisations, through to those from professional organisations and back again, who so selflessly give of their time. Some people might think, however, that the rot set in at some organisations when they adopted more politically correct titles such as Relate or Marriage Care. I stood at the Bar of another place and heard the phrase "couple counselling" falling from the lips of a noble prelate.
We must be extremely cautious if we are to provide large sums in the search for a small band of counsellors, some of whom might not be wholly committed to the sustaining of marriage and might be more concerned with couple counselling, or whatever it is fashionably called.
Secondly, I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister—I hope that he finds time to deal with this point when he winds up the debate—to give an idea of when the proposals that we are now debating, should they be accepted, will be brought into effect. There is not much point in the Government tabling amendments, which, although welcome, still give rise to unanswered questions such as, "Where are the resources coming from?" and, "Where are the counsellors coming from?" and which contain the suggestion that all will be well, if they may not come into effect for many years. In other words, I suggest that none of the Bill's provisions should be put into effect until those relating to marriage counselling have been introduced, because the first will fail without adequate and proper provision for the second.
I shall look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say, while I congratulate him on the excellent amendments.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) is advocating something that would be harmful. It is perfectly plain to everyone who has been following the Bill's progress in another place and in this House that at present 75 per cent. of divorces go through in about six months after the application has been lodged. If we delay implementation of the Bill, we shall not get the benefit, which will have a significant impact on the number of divorces, of requiring people to wait for at least a year, if not longer, from the moment of application.

I have quoted elsewhere the evidence from Canada, where a minimum provision of a year has led to one divorce application in five being withdrawn by the person who made the application. To throw away that benefit—the time for reflection and possibly for reconciliation, although not necessarily by counselling—will lead to more divorces and potentially to more unhappiness in people's future marriages, should they commit themselves to a further marriage.
Counselling is an important issue. It would be taking an un-Conservative view to say that all marriage counsellors have to be either state funded or state approved. There are many areas of independence in which Parliament and Government should have a limited role. If we—rightly—make provision for marriage counselling, we ought to allow a good deal of freedom. Many marriage guidance organisations are Church based, but do not provide services only for members of their own faith.
Hon. Members are perhaps divided, although not along party lines, on what the Bill actually does. I take my lead from His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke wisely in another place, saying that he was glad that the Bill was called not the Divorce Bill but the Family Law Bill.
It is worth reminding the House of words written 30 years ago, before political correctness could be accused of infecting any of our Churches. The report entitled "Putting Asunder" states:
We were persuaded that a divorce law founded on the doctrine of breakdown would not only accord better with social realities than the present law does, but would have the merit of showing up divorce for what in essence it is—not a reward for marital virtue on the one side and a penalty for marital delinquency on the other; not a victory for one spouse and a reverse for the other; but a defeat for both, a failure of the marital 'two-in-oneship' in which both members, however unequal their responsibility, are involved together. So we arrived at our primary and fundamental recommendation: that the doctrine of the breakdown of marriage should be comprehensively substituted for the doctrine of the matrimonial offence as the basis of all divorce".
If we are concerned about marriage counselling, and if we are looking for reconciliation and to provide couples with the opportunity to decide to continue their marriage, if that is their choice, we ought to tread lightly.
The suggestion that people involved in marriage guidance support the idea of extra counselling because it means extra work for them is to undervalue the commitment, which is often voluntary, of people who, through Church or secular organisations and whether because of some sense of humanity or faith, give of themselves and their time to try to help save the marriages of others and help reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that often occur when a relationship turns out to be less than perfect and when the commitment of marriage, which may have been entered into wholeheartedly, is fractured.
We should not make too much of marriage guidance organisations changing their names; instead, we should be concerned about the continuity of those involved in them. Members of my family have been involved in marriage guidance for the past 50 or 60 years and, on their behalf, I would take it as a gross insult to hear it said that they are the victims of political correctness. They want to increase people's happiness and help their marriages if possible.


If marriages end other than in death, they want to try to ensure that it happens without rancour or harmful effects on others.

Dame Jill Knight: It is not easy or cheap for an organisation to change its name; indeed, it is very complicated. Does not my hon. Friend think that there must have been a reason for an organisation to drop the word "marriage" from its title? Is not that significant; or have I and others got it all wrong?

Mr. Bottomley: I would not want to accuse my hon. Friend of getting anything all wrong, but there are different perspectives. I do not want to go into too much detail on that point, because I want to get more deeply involved in other matters later.
I think that I was the first hon. Member to introduce a debate on family policy and strengthening the family. That was in 1978. I think that I also introduced the second debate in 1982. The aim of helping families and establishing a family policy is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is wrong to read too much into a change of name. Many voluntary organisations have changed their name over the years, but we should remember that the vast majority of people involved in counselling want to help marriages last and understand the distress of people who come along for counselling. Perhaps it would be useful if more people went to counselling even before they began to consider divorce.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I understood that one of the principal reasons why the Marriage Guidance Council changed its name to Relate was that so much of its work consisted of teaching in schools and helping people to create relationships other than within marriage—not household relationships, but helping people to overcome bereavement or to get used to retirement, for example—and it thought that its original title was far too narrow.

Mr. Bottomley: We can agree that most of the work undertaken by organisations such as the Jewish Marriage Council or what were the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council and the Marriage Guidance Council is to help people who want their marriages to have a chance of lasting.

Mr. Streeter: We have had an interesting and helpful debate, and I am grateful to all those who have spoken in support of the new clause. I should like briefly to respond to a number of points that have been raised, as we have a long way to go.
Once again, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) raised the important issue of costs. I am tempted to say that we believe that the Bill is cost neutral, although it is not as cost neutral as it used to be. However, that would be daft.
First, it must be obvious that if there is mediation—and one person is representing two people—instead of legal proceedings where each party has a lawyer, only one person is being funded and there is clearly a saving to be made. Secondly, we believe that the Bill will achieve a reduction in conflict and litigation generally in the divorce

process. Therefore, we anticipate further saving. However, our funding commitments will entail further resourcing, which will be provided.
5 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) asked about the time scale. We have two years before the implementation of the provisions. It is not my expectation that the Bill will reach the statute book without the marriage guidance provisions being firmly in place. We have two years to ensure that funding is available, and I can give the House an assurance to that effect. We shall be in government to make sure that our assurances are met.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of marriage and the family. Let me stress that the interdepartmental working party on family and marriage is going out to consultation today, seeking ideas as to how exactly we can intervene earlier to support family and marriage. When I have put the Bill to bed this evening—I hope, tucked up safe and sound with the overwhelming support of the House—it will be my highest priority to make sure that the working party does an excellent job in the next 12 months, to elicit ideas as to exactly what we can and should do to support marriage and the family at an early and positive stage.

Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said, and I agree with him entirely. He will know that new clause 16, in my name, has not been selected for debate. It deals with family impact statements. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will refer that idea to the working party and review group? If civil servants and Ministers had to incorporate an impact statement when legislation was being drafted, we would have a better idea—just as we do in local government with environmental impact statements—as to the possible effect of everything, from cuts in child benefit to making divorce easier or more difficult. We would have an idea of the possible effects on the family, not least on the 750,000 children in Britain who no longer have access to their fathers.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Family impact statements are certainly worth consideration, so I can give him the assurance that he seeks. However, I am not sure that the working party is quite the right forum for his proposal.
Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the working party will have to consider what more can be done to prepare young couples for marriage and to make marriage stronger—or at least to make them understand what they are taking on. I draw upon my experience of taking young couples through a pre-marriage counselling course organised by my local church. My wife and I were involved in that for a number of years and we found that, out of an average crop of six young couples, only four would opt for marriage and two would decide that it should be either not then or not at all. We considered it to be a success rather than a failure if a couple found out before marriage that perhaps they were not right for each other. I support that concept entirely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked where all the counsellors would come from. The system has two years to develop, and it is for the counselling industry—


to use an inappropriate description—to respond. Counselling organisations know that funding is available and we want them to come forward, just as private nursery schools will take advantage of the excellent nursery voucher scheme that the Government have introduced.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister saying that money is available now for the training of additional counsellors, so that they will be ready to take on all the new customers at the end of two years? Is there money for training, and where will it come from?

Mr. Streeter: I shall certainly consider that point and come back to the hon. Lady.
In my experience, Relate is committed to the concept of marriage, and I understand that it is part of the principles of that organisation to believe in marriage. I agree that marriage counsellors who do not believe in marriage are like ministers of religion who do not believe in God.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) raised some important matters that the working party will address, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised a number of important points about standards. Wherever the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any organisation empowered by it, enters into a contract with marriage counsellors, we shall ensure that standards are in place that will satisfy my right hon. Friend's concern.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) raised an important point about the voluntary sector. I agree with him that many excellent voluntary organisations give counselling advice, and they are worthy of our support.

Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) gave the game away in respect of the Government's thinking—or the lack of it—in relation to funding. He has said on Report that he will take on board the additional expenditure that is necessary in order to fund the training and provision of counsellors during the two-year implementation period. He promised to give that some thought. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate, for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) have raised the subject time and again during our deliberations on the Bill. We have raised it on Second Reading and in Committee, and now we have been told that it deserves some thought.
The Government and the Department concerned must have given some thought to how much it will cost to get the bare framework in place for counselling. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) mentioned that in some parts of the country it takes a year to get an appointment with a counsellor. What is the Government's commitment, how much will it cost and where will the money come from? The Minister's notion that he is in a position to give a commitment in relation to some unspecified amount to be incurred by way of expenditure in the next two years—although he does not know how much it will be—demonstrates lack of thought and a lack of clarity in the Government's thinking on those matters. It really is not good enough, and it is clearly a matter that we shall have to take into account during our deliberations on the remaining stages of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 6

POWER OF ABRIDGEMENT (TRANSITIONAL PROVISION)

`.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules prescribing circumstances in which the court may abridge, in respect of a marriage, any period specified in section 7(3) or (13) or section 8(2) where it appears to the court that any party to the marriage or any children affected would otherwise suffer inequitable treatment in comparison to other cases where there had been an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage.

(2) Rules made under this section shall cease to have effect on the fifth anniversary of the day on which Part II of this Act came into effect.'. —[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 107, in schedule 9, page 83, line 15, at end insert—
'Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart
—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide for the application of Part II to marital proceedings which—
(a) are begun during the transitional period, and
(b) relate to parties to a marriage who immediately before the beginning of that period were living apart,
subject to such modifications (which may include omissions) as may be prescribed.
(2) An order made under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision as to the evidence which a party who claims to have been living apart from the other party immediately before the beginning of the transitional period must produce to the court.
(3) In this paragraph—
"marital proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 21;
"prescribed" means prescribed by the order; and
"transitional period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 3 is brought into force.'.
Government amendments Nos. 93 to 95.

Mr. Boateng: New clause 6 is designed to ensure that no injustice is done to the petitioning spouse to a divorce under the old law, who has lived separate and apart from his or her spouse for two years and is seeking a divorce by consent at the expiry of that period—or for five years, where there is a refusal of consent on the part of the respondent—as a result of the Lord Chancellor's bringing into effect the relevant provision of the Bill.
One of the alarming aspects of the Government's approach to the Bill is that they seem to have been caught between two conflicting impulses—the technocratic impulse, which has been present throughout consideration and formulation of the Bill, and the impulse to be seen to be paying at least some lip service to the maintenance of marital bonds. That has led them into error.
At one stage, it was the Government's view that there should be no transitional provision. So, it was just one's bad luck if one happened to have been working on the basis of the old law and was one year and 11 months into separation, or, indeed, one's misfortune if one had a


recalcitrant and obstructive spouse and was four years and 11 months into a five-year separation. One would just have to begin all over again.
That was clearly grossly unjust and caused widespread concern among the general public. We tabled the new clause and an alternative in amendment No. 107 to deal with that injustice. During a five or two-year transition period, the Lord Chancellor would have power to make necessary regulations to avoid an ensuing injustice to the parties. Such power is particularly important where children are involved. Uncertainty and damage can be done in such circumstances to children whose parents are precluded from arriving at new arrangements for their welfare or to children whose parents are precluded from entering into new, more formal relationships—when, perhaps, a child has been born of a new relationship—in order to secure their children's legitimacy. Unnecessary and unjust delay in those circumstances is clearly undesirable. Such delay would certainly occur were the House not to agree the need for transitional provisions.
I hope that the Government will accept that there is a need for such transitional provisions and that, accordingly, the Bill will be improved by their inclusion. The Opposition look forward to the Minister's early and positive response, while recognising that, when a similar amendment was tabled in Committee, the then Minister would have none of it. I hope that, now, good sense prevails and the Minister will be able to satisfy the Opposition and the House on the point.

Mr. Streeter: I speak against new clause 6, and in favour of amendment No. 107, which was also tabled by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I have taken advice from parliamentary counsel, and that suggests that, in order to achieve what I take to be the intention of new clause 6 and amendment No. 107, the wider-ranging, order-making power of the latter would be more suitable, because it would allow the court to adjust more of the Bill's provisions than simply the time periods. Bearing in mind the way in which the Bill's provisions interlink, that may be necessary to ensure workability.I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against new clause 6 and in favour of the amendment.
Amendment No. 107 provides for those couples who have been living apart immediately before the new provisions of the Bill coming into force. It addresses the situation where parties are in the process of a two or five-year separation period and have therefore not commenced divorce proceedings. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that parties in such a position would be required to undergo the full process under the new system, with no account being taken of any prior period of separation. Clearly, it would not be right to require couples to wait twice for their divorce.
The amendment allows the Lord Chancellor to modify the requirements of part II to provide that account may be taken of prior periods of separation, on proof of such separation being produced to the court, for a transitional period of two years. I appreciate that, in this respect, the Bill's current provisions may well lead to difficulties,

especially where children are involved and where further delay would be unfair and detrimental to their welfare. I therefore have pleasure in agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I welcome both the amendment and my hon. Friend the Minister's welcome for it. In practical terms, the amendment matters to the couples involved. In terms of number, it is not that important because only a small proportion of divorces occur after a five-year separation, and a relatively small number of divorces occur after two years when, in effect, both parties concur in the application. As my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) have said, it would be wrong if the Bill's provisions were to catch for an extra year or so those who are in the process of waiting for two or five years.

Mr. Boateng: I welcome the Minister's accession to amendment No. 107. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 8

DIVISION OF PENSION RIGHTS

`.—(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 25B (benefits under a pension scheme on divorce, etc.), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), by inserting—

"(c) in particular, where the court determines to make such an order, whether the order should provide for the accrued rights of the party with pension rights ("the pension rights") to be divided between that party and the other party in such a way as to reduce the pension rights of the party with those rights and to create pension rights for the other party.".

(3) After subsection (7) of that section, by adding—

"(8) If a pensions adjustment order under subsection (2)(c) above is made, the pension rights shall be reduced and pension rights of the other party shall be created in the prescribed manner with benefits payable on prescribed conditions, except that the court shall not have the power—
(a) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to provide benefits under their own scheme if they are able and willing to create the rights for the other party by making a transfer payment to another scheme and the trustees and managers of that other scheme are able and willing to accept such a payment and to create those rights; or
(b) to require the trustees or managers of the scheme to make a transfer to another scheme—
(i) if the scheme is an unfunded scheme (unless the trustees or managers are able and willing to make such a transfer payment); or
(ii) in prescribed circumstances.

(9) No pensions adjustment order may be made under subsection (2)(c) above—
(a) if the scheme is a scheme of a prescribed type, or
(b) in prescribed circumstances, or
(c) insofar as it would affect benefits of a prescribed type.".

(4) In section 25D (pensions: supplementary), by inserting—

(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) at the end of paragraph (a), the words "or prescribe the rights of the other party under the pension scheme,"; and
(ii) after paragraph (a), the following paragraph—

"(aa) make such consequential modifications of any enactment or subordinate legislation as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of section 25B; and an order under this paragraph may make provision applying generally in relation to enactments and subordinate legislation of a description specified in the order,";

(b) in subsection (4), in the appropriate place in alphabetical order, the following entries—

" 'funded scheme' means a scheme under which the benefits are provided for by setting aside resources related to the value of the members' rights as they accrue (and 'unfunded scheme' shall be construed accordingly);

`subordinate legislation' has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978;"; and

(c) after subsection (4), the following subsection—

"(4A) Other expressions used in section 25B above shall be construed in accordance with section 124 (interpretation of Part I) of the Pensions Act 1995.".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Denham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 24.
Amendment No. 97, in clause 5, page 3, line 5, after `assets', insert 'or rights'.
Government amendment No. 47, in clause 9, page 7, line 43, at end insert—
'(8) If the parties' arrangements for the future include a division of pension assets under section 25B of the 1973 Act or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, any declaration under subsection (2) must be a statutory declaration.'
Amendment (a) to the amendment, after 'assets', insert `or rights'.
Amendment No. 109, in clause 15, page 11, leave out lines 1 to 18.

Mr. Denham: New clause 8 is important to the Bill. Its acceptance would—I hope will—be welcomed by many people, but perhaps most by thousands of women who are facing the possibility of divorce, often in circumstances which they have not chosen, and who know that the consequence of divorce may be poverty in retirement. I speak of the impact on women, although the proposals of course are gender neutral. The inability of legislation to enable pensions to be split at the time of divorce largely affects women.
It has been recognised for at least 30 years that divorce can have a devastating impact on the retirement income of a divorced spouse. There has been a growing recognition of that impact in recent years. Sadly, that has not been recognised by the Government. Every action that the Government have taken in that matter has been marked by delay. Everything that has been achieved has been grudgingly conceded—often in the face of either an actual, or a potential, defeat in Parliament.
The basic problem is well recognised on both sides of the House. For a long time, it has possible in principle to take into account the value of pension assets as part of a

divorce settlement. In practice, however, that could be done only where there were sufficient other assets to be offset against the pension. Real justice could be achieved only if, in some way, the value of pension assets could be shared in appropriate proportions between the divorcing couple.
In practice, that has not been possible. The result has been that many women who have spent lifetimes bringing up children, looking after a home and sacrificing their careers to their husbands' success have been punished for everything that they have ever done. They have been left without a pension on income support and means-tested benefits, as, in a sense, a burden on the taxpayer—a burden that they never wanted to be. Throughout their lives, they have exercised family responsibilities with every intention of living in independence and security in retirement. Being forced to claim benefits in retirement was the last thing on their minds.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential that the Government set a clear timetable on the matter because, as we know, many women are suffering grievously because of the basic inherent inequity?

Mr. Denham: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am about—I hope at not too great a length—to set out the history of the matter, which I am afraid shows that the House should not take too seriously bland assurances from the Government. The history is not a good one.
A system that puts an unnecessary benefits bill on the taxpayer and unnecessarily takes independence and security from individual women cannot be right. Despite the fact that the position has been long recognised, the Government have initiated nothing save a mysterious report on pensions and divorce, which is long overdue and has not yet been published.
It was during the passage through the other place of the Pensions Act 1995 that the first progress was made. The Government bowed to cross-party pressure to concede the approach known as attachment, or earmarking. Under that procedure, once a pension is in payment, part may be paid by the pension provider to former partners. That was an improvement on the previous position in law but that gain—this relates to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—remains a meaningless paper commitment.
In 1995, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), said that the earmarking of pensions would apply to orders made after 1 April 1996. Now we are told that it will apply only to new applications for divorce made after 1 July 1996. That is a huge slippage, given that there are some 170,000 divorces a year. One can only speculate on how many women have been hit by the Government's lack of urgency.
The House was told in February by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), that the reason for the inexcusable delay was to allow consultees sufficient time to comment on the proposals. Two weeks before 1 July, there are no regulations out for consultation, no commencement order has been published and there is no sign of good faith from the Government, showing that they are moving urgently to implement the measure. I stress that history because it is possible that


the Government will ask the House to accept their good faith on the matter. Their record of inaction and delay in implementing earmarking suggests that something a good deal more explicit will be necessary—above all, a clear timetable for the implementation of pension splitting.
After the historic vote in another place, the Government have accepted the principle of pension splitting. It is an improvement on earmarking for the simple reason that a woman will no longer be tied to her husband's life, life expectancy or career after a divorce. Instead of divorced spouses having to wait for their partner's pensions to come into payment, after their partners have retired, at the point of the divorce the pension can be split into two independent pensions. That is the way we should go.
We argued that it was possible for the Government to introduce the principle of pension splitting in the Pensions Act 1995. The Government failed to do that. It is now possible to do it in the Family Law Bill. New clause 8 is intended to do just that. Its purpose is to produce a framework within which it would be possible, by regulation, to achieve a limited form of pension splitting this side of the next century. There is no reason why they cannot accept it.
I should explain briefly how new clause 8 improves on the present clause 15, which was adopted in another place. That clause was a historic victory and had cross-party support but it has some weaknesses. It is not sufficiently clear about the difference between a pension asset and a pension right, which are not necessarily the same things in different schemes. The provision for unfunded schemes is not clear. Most difficult of all, it allows the courts too much flexibility and may lead to a situation where there is no standard pattern of pension splitting, which would be enormously expensive for those who are called upon to implement it.
New clause 8 improves the existing clause in each of those respects. It is clear about the rights involved. It enables regulations to prescribe the shape of the benefits that would be reduced for the member of the scheme and the shape of the benefits that would be created for the divorced spouse. It would enable the regulations to be clear about the rights of the spouse once the benefit is set up. It would give clear rights to schemes in respect of the circumstances in which assets should be transferred to a new, free-standing pension or retained within the existing scheme. It will enable a limit to be set in the case of unfunded schemes to prevent an expensive commitment of cash transfers to separate pension schemes. New clause 8 is therefore a significant improvement on clause 15 and would take us much nearer to the implementation of pension splitting, which has been long sought and should have been put in place by now.
The Opposition have been practical and realistic. We have accepted that it is not possible to complete all of the changes that could be made. In particular, the inclusion of the state earnings-related pension scheme and, possibly, of guaranteed minimum pensions in pension splitting at this stage is a technical challenge that will require further work—although I am reluctant to accept the Government's lengthy timetable as a rigid limit on how long it should take. We have recognised the need to restrict rights to claim large cash transfers from unfunded

pension schemes. Our commitment to pension splitting is accompanied by a belief, and an intention, that it can be introduced at no net cost to public expenditure.
New clause 8 would move us forward and bring new hope to many people, especially many women, who are facing divorce and, as a consequence, poverty and insecurity, in their retirement. The Government have, for the reasons that I have given, lost credibility on the matter, but they have the chance to recover some. To accept the new clause would be an important step. Perhaps more important—because even under the new clause, regulations will be needed to implement the measures that it sets out—the House needs a clear timetable from the Government showing when pension splitting will be introduced.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman said that he favours a system of pension splitting whereby there would be no cost to public funds. How would he bring that about?

Mr. Denham: Several concerns have been raised, although the figures have changed significantly over the past year. On the two major measures, the figures for 2020 produced by the Treasury suggest that any tax implications would be offset by savings on income support and the legal aid bill. We have recognised that, in the case of unfunded public sector schemes, it would not be possible to enable a divorce partner simply to take a cash lump sum from those schemes to transfer into an alternative pension. Although in the long term there would be no net cost from that, it could lead in the short term to a substantial outflow of funds from the unfunded schemes. In an ideal world, that limitation might not be desirable, but we regard it as necessary at this stage. We have taken some care to examine the matter and have tabled new clause 8 in the belief that pension splitting can be introduced at no net cost to public expenditure.
A clear timetable from the Government is essential. It must not be the sort of the timetable that led women to believe that earmarking would be applied to their divorces if they entered actions in 1995 only to find that the rules were changed and that they had been denied the benefit of the Pensions Act 1995. Such a misleading timetable would not be acceptable. We must have a clear timetable for when the Government expect to bring forward the necessary measures to put pension splitting on the statute book.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has mentioned a number of matters. The Government accept the principle of pension splitting when dealing with financial provision on the termination of marriage. We are fully committed to it and to legislating to effect it as soon as practicable. There is no point of difference between the Government and the Opposition on that.
Earmarking has been mentioned. The scheme for attaching orders for periodical payments and lump sums has been fully considered so that a regulatory framework can be provided. I am happy to say that the agreed policy will be subject to regulations to bring section 166 into force for petitions that are filed on or after 1 July 1996. That intention was made plain earlier this year and we shall deliver on it. An announcement on the agreed policy will be made within the next couple of days.
As a measure of good will, we agreed not to overturn clause 15, although the clause would not, as I think the hon. Member for Itchen agreed, work as intended. Instead, we agreed fully to explore the issues and to present appropriate legislation when we had done that. That is the proper approach. The Opposition amendments restate the principle, but they do not underpin it with a considered policy that deals with all applications in terms of pensions and taxation.
The amendments are an attempt to deal with those wide-ranging, complex and sensitive issues by giving to the Lord Chancellor powers not only to effect pension splitting but to amend existing primary and secondary legislation when the majority of legislative change lies within pensions and tax law. The amendments would also, inadequately in the Government's view, extend pension splitting to Scotland. The issues have not been consulted upon or worked out. New clause 8 addresses that by leaving everything to be prescribed, but that approach has two serious flaws.
The first flaw is the extent to which the powers can be used to address the issues in regulations. In effect, it would mean that Parliament would be denied the opportunity to make important decisions on principle and policy. For example, it would not be allowed to decide whether all the pension rights should be split or only those that had been acquired during the marriage; what rights a non-scheme member spouse should be given; the obligations of scheme managers; and to what extent their discretion would be fettered.
Parliament would have no opportunity to amend or even to debate regulations that affect divorcing couples and public finances. There is no legal or constitutional rule prohibiting Parliament from legislating to provide wide powers, but Parliament is usually highly critical of any attempt to bypass its scrutiny of policy. As illustrated by the Bill, many of our debates consider policy issues and their implementation in great detail.
There would be a need for a great deal of prescription: the regulations would have to contain a raft of policy and legislative change. Those changes could affect the fundamental rights of many people. For example, they would affect property rights, tax positions and even rights within the civil justice system. I should have thought that, at the very least, the debate in the other place and elsewhere has clearly illustrated that pension splitting raises fundamental issues in relation to the purpose, operation and tax treatment of pension schemes.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that he accepts the principle; that this is a complex issue that needs to be looked at carefully; and that therefore there must be proper legislation. He has also said that, in the spirit of good will, he will leave clause 15 in the Bill. That clause was agreed in the other place and has not been debated in the House. So that we shall know what to do later this evening, what is the impact of leaving it in the Bill?

Mr. Heald: Clause 15 establishes in the Bill the principle of pension splitting without giving the courts the powers that are necessary to effect it.

Mr. Marlow: What, then, is the point of leaving in the Bill a declaration that has no legal effect? What does it do?

Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made it clear that the

Government's proposal was for a Green Paper to examine all the issues in detail so that we would be able, after proper consultation, to put in place the regulations to give effect to the principle that is outlined in clause 15. The Government's approach was to accept the principle and to have clause 15 in the Bill, but to go about the business of the consultations and preparations that are needed to make pension splitting a reality.

Mr. Marlow: The Bill will receive a Third Reading and Royal Assent, and clause 15 will be in it. The Government will later present proposals, but in the meantime, cases could come before the courts. What will be the effect in court of clause 15 being in the Bill? If lawyers start debating the issue, putting it before the court or taking cases to court under clause 15, will that clause have any effect?

Mr. Heald: Perhaps I did not make the matter clear. Clause 15 does not contain the means to enable the court to make an effective order for pension splitting. In its present form, the clause could not be implemented. No doubt that is the thinking behind new clause 8, which is an attempt to provide regulation-making powers that would give reality to pension splitting, although I have criticisms of that. Of itself, clause 15 would not be sufficient to effect that change.
When somebody is about to have his property rights altered or taken away, he should expect Parliament to have conferred an appropriate power to do that. However, it is not clear that the powers in the new clause are appropriate for that. They are certainly not transparent. For example, it is open to challenge that there is a clear power to allow the court to make an order requiring the managers of a pension scheme or anyone else to take the necessary steps to effect a pension split. That lack of clarity should not be condoned. There are implications for employers, pension scheme managers, funds of more than £600 billion, other scheme members, actuaries, lawyers and others as well as for the individuals concerned and public finances.
The powers within new clause 8 are arguably not transparent, and are inadequate. The second major flaw is that, although the regulation-making powers appear to be wide ranging, they may not be wide enough to deal adequately with all the legislative issues that arise. Under those powers, further primary legislation may be required. The potential scale of legislation that may need amendment does not seem to have been fully considered. I am glad that the hon. Member for Itchen has listened to that point.
My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the noble Lord Elton said in the other place that, even in February, a one-and-a-half-page list of statutes would need to be looked at. That list is likely to grow significantly as we consult because we do not yet have a clear idea of the full extent of the legislative amendment that will be needed after we have consulted. It is fair to say that, in pensions, consultations often provide useful information about defects in draft regulations and ways in which legislation can be better effected. That is one of the reasons for taking such trouble to consult people in the


industry and others at every stage on the pensions legislation regulations. That has been applauded, and I think that Opposition Members agree with it.

Mr. Denham: If the Government have been so careful in their consultations, why have we not yet seen the regulations on pension splitting that are to come into force on 1 July?

Mr. Heald: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. The earmarking proposals apply to petitions issued after 1 July 1996, but it was never intended to lay orders in relation to petitioners until April 1997. Adequate time is available for those petitions to be filed, and those involved in matrimonial law are fully aware of that.
Opposition Members may argue that enough work has been done to determine policy and that they know what legislation is necessary. If so, the hon. Member for Itchen has not set out a scheme in detail. If one provides Henry VIII powers—as, in effect, the new clause does—the limits within which those powers are to be exercised are usually defined. The Government believe that the publication of a Green Paper in July, to explore the issues and to consult on how pension splitting might be sensibly achieved, is the proper way forward. It is not intended as a delaying tactic in any way, and it is necessary that groups with an interest in the matter have an opportunity to comment. It is sensible to introduce legislation and proposals for its implementation once that work is complete, and not before. Producing sound policy in a complex matter such as this takes time, as Opposition Members know. They should appreciate that a wide range of issues will be considered in the Green Paper.

Mr. Rowe: Have the Government ventured any kind of judgment as to whether the proposition that pensions should be split between a divorcing husband and wife would increase or decrease the attractiveness of marriage?

Mr. Heald: No one who has been involved in a divorce case—I speak as a lawyer who has represented individuals in such cases—would consider that it was a good thing financially to become divorced. To spread one or two incomes over two households where previously there was only one is not easy. It is not the Government's view that accepting the principle of pension splitting will give a reward either for marriage or for divorce. It is simply a provision that the courts have wanted for a considerable time, as those involved in family law would agree. The Government's concerns are to put the proposal into practical effect and to ensure that the necessary regulations and primary powers are provided.
The Government confirm their commitment to the principle, and we are prepared to leave clause 15 in the Bill until such time as it can be amended or replaced by suitable implementing legislation. We should introduce legislation from a position of knowledge, not guesswork, and the most sensible route is to introduce appropriate legislation once the consultation process is complete. I reiterate the Government's commitment to do so. I ask the hon. Member for Itchen to consider how we should make proper law in such cases.
The Government do not object to the other Opposition amendments in the group.

Mrs. Maddock: It is clearly the will of Parliament that pension splitting should be addressed in the Bill. I listened with interest to the Minister as he talked about a Green Paper. The matter has been discussed by a number of institutions for more than 25 years. In 1993, the Pensions Management Institute produced a very good report, which has been followed by report after report. Pension splitting takes place in other countries satisfactorily, and it is high time that we had fewer excuses and more action from the Government in bringing it about.
Many groups have campaigned on the matter and have produced information in reports. The Fairshares group—a group of divorcees—has campaigned, as has the Pensions Management Institute, the National Association of Pension Funds, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Association of Pension Lawyers. There is plenty of evidence to assist the Government.
5.45 pm
My noble Friend Baroness Seear put it succinctly when she said that this is a matter of "justice, decency and honour", and that is right. During the debates on the Pensions Bill in 1995, we saw a little move along the road by the Government, but it was unsatisfactory. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said that women who are getting on in life are most likely to benefit from the measure. A lady came to my surgery on Saturday and specifically asked me, not to help her—she knows that it is too late for her—but to speak in support of the proposal in the House of Commons. Many women who end up being traded in for a younger model have supported the gentleman in question for a number of years. They have contributed considerably to the pension, and it is only just and right that that is recognised when the marriage ends.
I hope that there will be quick action from the Minister, although I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government recognise that the principle is needed in the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I want to see the regulations and the enactment of the Bill soon. Many matters in the Bill are for an individual hon. Member's conscience and will be dealt with by a free vote, but my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats would be unhappy about a Bill that did not include pension splitting. 
I hope that that will be supported, although I am disappointed that, once again, we are waiting for a Green Paper. The Government must get on with it, as the matter certainly needs to be dealt with.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall be brief, as we have a lot of work ahead of us. In answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), section 25 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 imposes a duty on courts to have regard to the value of a pension if that is ascertainable. From a practical point of view, I know that that is frequently a very difficult exercise. The law is very much in need of reform so that the parties know where they stand and the courts have a uniform approach to an asset which is, after one's home, often the largest asset in a normal family. The duty in section 25 of the 1973 Act is to have regard to a range of factors, one of which is the value of a pension scheme.
The Minister said that groups involved directly in the pensions world are unhappy or unable to comment favourably on the proposed change, but I do not accept that. The Pensions Act 1995 was a considerable step forward, and the Pensions Management Institute and the National Association of Pension Funds are in favour of pension splitting. Those organisations were commended in the other place for their hard work in trying to educate the Government on the matter. Other bodies, including the Institute of Actuaries and the Association of Pension Lawyers—both of which are well versed in the intricacies of pensions law—are in favour of a change.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that the whole House is in favour of equitable pension splitting. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that clause 15 as written is not justiciable. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer—as least he is implying that he is a lawyer. Is it wise to have within the Bill something that is not justiciable?

Mr. Llwyd: It is an offence to imply that one is a lawyer if one is not—I am, in fact, a lawyer. Mind you, in many circumstances it can be an offence to admit that as well. We are dealing with a broad statement of principle, and that is why the new clause should find favour. Frankly, it would add flesh to the bones and would enable us to take the matter forward. I am sure that the Minister is sincere, but I respectfully remind him that discussions have been going on since at least 1968. It is a long time since then, during which a great number of people have, as it were, fallen by the wayside in divorce. I have received many letters from women who are unable to do anything about accessing a share of the husband's divorce pension allocation, to which I believe that they are entitled. The time lag does us no credit. I hope that we can introduce legislation very quickly.
I make one final point, in an effort to assist the deliberations more than anything else. In the past 10 years, there has been a tendency towards clean break orders in matrimonial courts. It is a welcome change, because often the parties need not return for any variation and the settlement is made once and for all, as the words "clean break" imply. It is not possible to apply a thorough clean break principle to divorce law if one must leave to one side the second most important asset of that marriage—the pension.
I urge the Minister and the Government to get a move on, because the interests of justice, and of fair play generally, demand it.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I strongly endorse what was said by Labour Members and by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). The Married Women's Association was formed more than 40 years ago by one of my constituents and is now chaired by her daughter. One of its concerns, all those years ago, was what would happen to the pension on divorce, as it was inevitably and invariably the woman who found herself without pension rights.
Hon. Members have spoken of the contribution that a woman makes by maintaining home and family, precluding her from earning any occupational pension rights herself. Representations have been made to me by constituents who, while managing home and family, made a sizeable contribution in some instances to the family business and after divorce found themselves excluded from any pension rights.
The Minister's contribution appalled me. He seemed to say that he accepts in principle that pension splitting is right, but that it is so incredibly complex that the House may be unable to define the legislation to make an inequitable situation equitable. He spoke of property rights, and I received the impression that he regarded the property rights to a pension as being exclusively those of the male partner in this sense. We argue that, as far as a pension is concerned, there are equal property rights.
The Government appear to have had no difficulty shaping and passing through the House legislation when they wished to change, for example, pension rights of employees of British Rail or people working in the bus industry. Surely it is not an impossibility for the House to bring its attention and intelligence to bear to change a growing inequity.
Timetabling is enormously important. If women are to be fobbed off again with fine words from the Minister saying, "Yes, we accept that this is basically unjust, but we cannot give you any idea of when this unjust situation will be rectified," I must tell the Minister that I find that unacceptable, as I know do many of my female constituents, who have made specific and direct representations to me on this. I cannot believe that the Minister is not aware of the grave economic difficulties that an increasing number of women suffer as a result of this injustice, and I refuse to accept that it is beyond the will and wish of the House to introduce legislation so that that injustice can be eradicated comparatively soon.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister's response is as grudging as it is mean-spirited. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh yes. Had it not been for Opposition Members, the Government would have done nothing about pension splitting when we considered the Pensions Bill. Had it not been for Members on the Labour Benches in another place, with cross-party support, we would not be addressing the issue of pension splitting now. That is the reality.
The reality today is that the Government are still not prepared to commit themselves to the timetable that we want in relation to this matter.

Mr. Heald: I have said that the aim and intention is that the Green Paper will be published in July, there will be three months' consultation and we would aim to have a White Paper early in the new year.

Mr. Boateng: Early in the new year is not good enough. The Government have had plenty of time to consider the matter. We want a clear sign that they will do what is necessary in terms of regulation, that they will do what is necessary—if it is necessary—in terms of primary legislation, and that that process will commence at the beginning of the next Session. That is not an unreasonable timetable, but obviously the Minister is not prepared to make that commitment.
We must make one thing crystal clear to the Government. No Family Law Bill will pass the House that does not have written on its face the regulations that are contained in new clause 8 and our amendment in relation to that matter. The Government will have no Bill unless they recognise the vital nature of the concerns that we have raised with them—the concerns of women who face an old age of poverty because the Government have failed to act.
If the Government will not act, we will. If we have to, we will divide the House on this issue and, if we have to, we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading unless and until this new clause and the amendments are carried and appear on the face of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 9

STATEMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

`.—(1) The parties to a marriage may, at the time of their marriage or at any time thereafter declare by deed that neither party will apply for a divorce order save in such circumstances as are provided for within the deed.

(2) Regulations shall make provision for the parties to the deed to lodge the original of the deed at the Principal Registry of the Family Division.

(3) A deed made under this section shall not affect the power of the court to make a separation order and any ancillary financial orders relevant thereto, in respect of the marriage to which the deed applies.

(4) A deed made under this section shall not affect the power of the court to declare the marriage to which the deed applies void and to issue a decree of nullity in respect of that marriage.

(5) A deed made under this section shall not affect the application of the provisions of Part IV of this Act, relating to family homes and domestic violence, to either party to the marriage to which the deed applies.

(6) Regulations shall make provision for persons who have given notice of intention to marry to be notified of the right to execute a deed under the provisions of subsection (1) above, and of the effect of so doing.

(7) Where the parties to the marriage have made a deed under the provisions of this section:
(a) no court may make a divorce order in respect of the marriage to which that deed applies other than in any circumstances provided for within the deed;
(b) no divorce or annulment obtained by either party in relation to the marriage in any jurisdiction outside of England and Wales shall be capable of recognition under Part II of this Act unless the grounds on which it was obtained comply substantially with the circumstances provided for within the deed.

(8) Section 3 (3) and section 4(3) above shall not apply where a deed has been executed in accordance with this section.

(9) A party seeking divorce under this section must additionally satisfy the requirements of Part II of this Act.—[Dame Jill Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dame Jill Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'by' in line 7 and insert—
`(1) Except where a deed made under section (Statement of conscientious objection) applies, the court may, by making an order (to be known as a divorce order) dissolve a marriage.
(2) The court may,'.

No. 119, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, after `includes', insert
'—
(a) hardship attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble; and
(b)'.

Dame Jill Knight: The impetus behind the new clause is to allow couples, if they wish, to make a firmer commitment to one another than the marriage ceremony will become when the Bill becomes law.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that any civil contract, such as purchase of a television set or an electric cooker, hire purchase of a car, buying a house on mortgage, agreement on employment or use of land or education or any other solemn contract between two persons, is framed to ensure that each party keeps his or her side of the bargain. In no contract of which I am aware, and in no contract that I could call to mind, can one party renege on the deal giving no reason whatsoever and against the wish of the other party. Is it so outrageous to permit couples to have as binding a marriage contract as the contract that they would make if they were buying a dining room table?
I cannot help wondering how the marriage service will change after the Bill is passed, as change it surely must. We have reached a sea change in what is lawful in marriage. Members will recall words from the marriage ceremony, but for greater accuracy I have obtained a copy of it. I draw the attention of the House to two parts. Both husband and wife are required to make a vow,
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love, cherish … till death us do part … and thereto I give thee my troth.
They make that promise in a most solemn place—usually in front of an altar, and in front of their friends and relatives. Many witnesses hear that solemn and binding promise. A little later in the service, the priest says:
so these persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made".
We should not pretend that marriage is just a pretty ceremony, with the lady in a delightful dress, little tots carrying flowers, bridesmaids, and so on. It is an extremely solemn moment for most couples. But what will happen when the Bill is passed? Without any fault at all, one person can break the contract—and it will not matter whether the other person does not want it to be broken. Divorce has always been available—although never so prevalent as it is now—but there has always had to be a reason. Now, no reason has to be given at all. That is a worry to me and to hon. Members who support what I am saying.
6 pm
Some people have said to me that if we are to have a way of signalling that both parties accept the binding nature of a marriage service—some may just go for the breakable sort—we will have to have a two-tier marriage contract. That difference exists already: some people choose to be married in a register office and some people choose to be married in a church.
Hon. Members who support the theory that couples should be allowed to make a binding promise do not think that divorce should not be allowed. For example, there


may be cruelty in a marriage, and the Catholic Church allows for the annulment of a marriage. New clause 9 accepts that people can be divorced if there is a real reason for the marriage to end. We are not trying to stop people altogether from getting divorced; we are trying to say that we cannot pretend that the present marriage service will not have to be changed. We are in an entirely different set of circumstances—we have never faced a situation where a solemn promise made in one of the most solemn places in our country can be broken on a whim, for no reason whatsoever.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether hon. Members will be permitted a free vote on this matter. Like many parts of this unhappy Bill, this is a question of conscience. Few Bills in this House have been so strongly linked to a Member's conscience and belief.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am trying to understand what new clause 9 will achieve. If this deed were made or declared by the parties to the marriage, would it require both of them to do it, rather than just one of them? If this deed were made, would adultery or desertion be grounds for divorce?

Dame Jill Knight: That is not in the new clause. As I have said, those of us who are interested in giving a couple the right to make a firmer promise than they will be able to make recognise that there are reasons why a marriage sometimes, and unhappily, should end. We are not saying that in no circumstances can a marriage be ended; we are trying to make society recognise how vital marriage is for society. If we go on as we are at the moment—with the divorce rate rising and more children living in one-parent families—we shall all suffer. We are not saying that there should be no divorce; we are saying that two people who decide that they want to be married to each other should be able to make a firm commitment. The Church will have to decide whether to leave the words that I have just read out in the service because they will not mean a thing.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in relation to adultery and desertion. If a couple have a deed—as she proposes—which does not refer to adultery and desertion as grounds for divorce, but subsequently there is adultery or desertion, will that couple be entitled to a divorce?

Dame Jill Knight: Of course they will. There are many reasons why divorce has to happen, including violence. I emphasise that we are not saying that there is no reason ever to divorce. The two reasons that hon. Members have mentioned—adultery and desertion—are good reasons why a marriage may become intolerable.

Mr. Cohen: May I intervene further on that point?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members are interested in other provisions of the Bill.

Dr. Bray: I am trying to understand what the hon. Lady is proposing. Does she propose that every couple will draft their own deed or select the items that will go into their deed? Or will there just be a standard deed?

Dame Jill Knight: If the new clause becomes law, I am sure that there would be a standard agreement.

The important point is that both the man and the woman would have to agree to, and want to sign, the deed. I cannot see how the Church—my Church, the Church of England—can possibly allow the wording of the marriage service to remain as it is. It will mean nothing to say
till death us do part
and to make a solemn promise before God when for the first time ever it can be broken for no reason at all, and possibly against the will of the other partner. For those reasons, I suggest to the House that it is not unreasonable to allow people who want to make a solemn promise to do so.

Mr. Alton: I support the cross-party amendment, which stands in my name and in the names of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton). The amendment raises some interesting issues that the House is right to spend a little time considering. I thank the hon. Lady for putting her arguments so cogently.
The hon. Members who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill are grateful for some of the improvements that were made in Committee. We recognise that the Minister and his predecessor have done a lot to try to address the issues that were raised on Second Reading. It is important for Ministers to understand and to realise that the conviction that led to opposition on Second Reading may, in some cases, lead to opposition on Third Reading unless something is done to deal with the question of conscientious objection. The House, too, must realise that there is no question of the arrangement's being binding on anyone who disavows it. The legislation, in its Third Reading form, would apply to people throughout the country, unless they chose to opt out—by means of this provision—when they married. Allowance is made for conscientious objection.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) asked, very properly, about the nature of the deed that would be drawn up. I understand that, according to the drafting of the new clause, the deed would be in accordance with the teaching of the Church of which theperson concerned was a member. Clearly, however, if that person was not a member of a Church, there would be an opportunity for husband and wife to draw up a deed that could be lodged with the registrar at the time of their marriage. The new clause allows for personal responsibility: it allows for a personal affirmation of what the couple intend their marriage to be at the time of that marriage.
Catholics and evangelicals, for instance, would interpret what is meant in regard to adultery differently, as has already been pointed out; but that could be recognised in the framing of the deed, and it would not be binding on anyone who did not wish to have it. If someone wanted to lodge the deed with the registrar at the time of his marriage, however, it would complement and add to the legislation. It would take nothing from anyone who had no religious belief, or did not wish to be bound by it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I appreciate the efforts made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and many others to try to improve this appalling Bill.


I shall support the new clause, but I still think that it would be very much better to throw out the whole Bill lock, stock and barrel.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady has given her view of the Bill in a characteristic way. She and I were in the same Lobby on Second Reading. I should feel much happier about the Bill if it allowed the right of conscientious objection, but I recognise that genuine attempts have been made to improve it.
The hon. Member for Edgbaston mentioned "two-tier marriages". I agree with her. That phrase has been thrown out by various hon. Members who have said, "If we pass the new clause, it will create two-tier marriages." There are so many diverse forms of relationship in this country today that it is absurd to suggest that the one thing that will not be allowed is a covenant between a husband and wife who opt out and say that they want to be bound by the sacrament of marriage for the rest of their lives. That is what will happen, however, if the new clause is not accepted.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be possible to make this trivial point later, but if the parties continue to agree to the vow that they have made the whole issue will become academic. A more serious point concerns ecclesiastical annulments. I understand that, in some Churches, it is possible to go along and say, "Although I openly made a commitment to lifelong marriage, I did not know what I was doing when I made that vow. May I establish that the marriage never actually took place?"—although, according to a secular society, it clearly did. Would the new clause make it possible to go along to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Not only was I wrong in believing that I was capable of making a marriage vow; I was wrong in signing the deed"?

Mr. Alton: The new clause makes full provision for annulment, in the sense that if it could be demonstrated that one or other partner was not convinced of what he or she was doing at the time, and if that could be proved to the ecclesiastical authorities, it would be possible—in line with the teachings of the Church concerned—for the marriage to be dissolved as it could be now, through annulment. That is the nature of such a deed.
It must be said that, in relative terms, that procedure is rarely invoked. We are witnessing the dissolution of marriage and family life as an institution. The hon. Gentleman and I share the view that, when marriage breakdowns are fast approaching the American level—nearly 50 per cent. of marriages now end in divorce—drastic action is needed to reiterate the commitment to marriage and family life. I think that hon. Members increasingly agree that we need a Bill that is about marriage and family, not simply about making divorce easier.
Incidentally, the marriages of our parents' generation hit the same rocks that ours hit from time to time. In those days, however, the normal procedure was to try to sort out the problems and stay together. Nowadays, a range of things happen that accelerate the destruction of marriage, with disastrous consequences. As one who has represented an inner-city area for 25 years as a councillor or Member of Parliament, I have observed that my area

contains marriage dissolution on the same scale as any other area. Indeed, on the sink estates, where life is often very difficult for all sorts of reasons related to economic poverty, one of the worst problems has nothing to do with that: it is related to the human ecology of the breakdown of social institutions, not least the absence of fathers and the breakdown of marriages.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The hon. Gentleman has identified the root of the problem. Perhaps in his parents' generation—certainly in mine—there was a greater commitment to start with, but there was also a greater commitment to the tough times as well as the good times. In inner cities, there were tough times in our parents' day, but the initial commitment is not the same now. As soon as something goes a little wrong, people opt for a divorce because that is the easiest way out. We should try to create a firmer base on which to build.

Mr. Alton: I entirely agree. I think that the hon. Lady would also agree with me—given her experience of working with broken families and children who become the casualties of those families—that we too often trot out the ridiculous statement that divorce is being arranged for the good of the children, and that they should not be caught up in such circumstances. If children are asked what they think, however—The Daily Telegraph, for instance, has asked them in surveys—the majority repeatedly say that they would have preferred their parents to stay together, rather than witness the breakdown of the family. Such breakdowns often have calamitous social consequences.
We must all do more. The phrase "preparation for marriage" has been used again and again in the debate; I cannot think of anything that would prepare people better for marriage than a discussion about whether or not to lodge a deed of this kind. People opting into such a covenant would have to have that discussion. They would sit down with their intended and say, "Which shall we opt for—the conscience clause that means that we will stay together and regard our marriage vows as really being for life, or the marriage settlement that will allow us to divorce easily and quickly?" That would concentrate people's minds in regard to precisely what they were entering into. It would be the fastest possible learning curve. When a person's intended replied, "I would rather opt for the easier alternative, on the basis that we should be able to divorce more quickly," at least that person would know how committed his or her partner was to the relationship.
This a practical, commonsense idea which is in keeping with what Members of Parliament constantly tell us on everything from bio-ethical issues to questions such as Sunday trading: that we must have more and more choice. Let me look at the other side of the coin, for once. If people want choice, let us provide this choice, and allow them to opt out. If it will not affect anyone who does not want it, where is the harm? If it is part of living in a pluralist society—if I may use that rather hackneyed phrase—allowing greater individual choice and permitting people to opt out of legislation, where is the harm? I believe that it could lead to many good consequences. I am happy to support the hon. Member for Edgbaston, and hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Rowe: I could not have more sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston


(Dame J. Knight) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in their attempt to strengthen the institution of marriage. I must say, however, that if a wedding in church means anything—I accept that some families still regard a church wedding as a social photo opportunity, although they are few and far between—it means a young couple seriously entering into what they hope will be a lifelong marriage, bolstered by the Church's historical vows for that purpose and strengthened, they hope, by the many people who have come to take part in the ceremony. One hopes that they will also be prepared for marriage, and all Church denominations are taking increasingly seriously their responsibility to prepare couples for marriage. I fail to see, therefore, how the registration of an additional deed would strengthen their marriage.
A young couple making their vows to each other in the presence of the God in whom they believe cannot make a more solemn undertaking. If, unhappily, the marriage goes wrong and they decide to divorce, they experience huge anxiety as they try to salve their consciences.

Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might be so if both partners freely agree to end their relationship, but in the circumstances that we are debating one or other partner will be divorced against his or her will? How will that leave them if they conscientiously object to the concept of divorce? Some people conscientiously believe that marriage is for life and that marital breakdown excludes the possibility of remarriage. The new clause seeks to cover merely that point and neither the hon. Gentleman nor I should impute what we want on others; let them decide for themselves.

Mr. Rowe: I have no qualms whatever about young couples signing such an agreement, but it is extraordinary to include such a provision in a Bill. We must remember that we are debating an institution to which a growing number of young people do not subscribe. Many young people who decide to live together enter into such a solemn undertaking and sign agreements. Some of them even register the agreements with lawyers or others. The majority of people who enter into any form of marriage do so with the intention of making it last.

Dame Jill Knight: I did not follow the line that my hon. Friend took when he seemed to suggest that what we are seeking already exists. If people can already make an extra commitment, what is wrong with allowing them to continue to do so?

Mr. Rowe: I am not clear how the Bill, as drafted, would prevent them from doing so. That is my difficulty. There is no reason why they should not sign such a document.

Mr. Leigh: Under English law, the courts will rule that statute must take precedence over private covenants or deeds. Therefore, without the new clause, a deed made by a couple at the time of their marriage is not only unenforceable but uniquely unenforceable, and the courts will deliberately overturn it. That is why the new clause must be passed.

Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation because I was not aware of that, but to ask

courts, 20 years later, to enforce such agreements will lead to the great difficulties that have dogged the issue of divorce through the centuries. I am not, therefore, very happy about the new clause.
There is the serious risk of the House giving the impression that marriage should be made as difficult to sustain as possible—that penalties and difficulties should be laid in the way of those who want to marry and to try to make their marriage work—whereas it should be a joyful and sustaining partnership in which the state's interest is manifest. If the new clause is agreed, all that will happen is what is happening with increasing speed—more couples will refuse to take the risk of getting married to avoid the obstacle that the House is in danger of laying before them.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I have some difficulty in framing my response to the new clause because I have enormous respect for the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight, and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I wish to speak along the broad lines of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
I well understand the background that motivates the new clause: the decline of marriage as an institution, the casualties—especially children, who are often the innocent victims—and the wish as far as possible to buttress the institution of marriage. I am not sure, however, that this instrument will have any effect.
The new clause has been sold by the hon. Member for Edgbaston as allowing couples, if they wish, to make a firmer commitment at the time of marriage. She and I, at different times, went through a church marriage. We made our solemn vows and they are binding on us. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, there can be nothing more solemn than a couple's joint declaration in a church before God.
I do not know what more the hon. Member for Edgbaston wants. If, in addition to the church declaration before God, any couple wish to make a covenant between themselves, they are entitled to do so. The real question is whether that covenant, declaration or whatever should be underpinned by statute or by the state. I doubt whether such an underpinning would have any real effect.
It implies some lack of trust if one partner, having gone through the church ceremony of marriage and having made a most solemn undertaking, insists on some further measure to prove undying commitment. One knows from personal experience that those who are ready to make the most grand declarations and to enter into the most serious covenants may not be those who are most serious about marriage.
My first unhappiness about the new clause is that it implies a lack of trust among people who enter into marriage and my second is that it would have no practical effect. Yes, I am as unhappy as the hon. Member for Edgbaston about the decline in respect for marriage and all the other matters that have been mentioned, but how will the problems described by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—feckless fathers and the neglect of children—be affected one jot if the new clause is passed?
It would not tackle social ills. If partners want to enter such an agreement, so be it. The hon. Lady said that it was a matter of conscience. Conscience is for individuals, and we are devising—however inadequately—ways in


which the state can deal with the institution of marriage and with marriages that do not last. Although I respect the motives behind the new clause, it would not work.

Mr. Leigh: I rise to support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and to speak to my amendment No. 119. My hon. Friend and I support the verdict of the House, which wants no-fault divorces. We are not seeking to reverse the vote in favour of them but is there any reason, in a free society, for not allowing people to state at the time of marriage their conscientious belief in the Christian concept of marriage? Such a deed would be drawn up according to the teachings of the various Christian Churches. I am not familiar with the teachings of other religions but no doubt they could do the same.
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) it would certainly be possible, under the teachings of the evangelical Churches, for adultery to be a ground for divorce and there is a provision for annulment under the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. We are fundamentally talking about freedom of choice.
6.30 pm
We are not trying to put fault back into the Bill. There is no question of including words such as "adultery", "desertion" or "conduct". The contract would be a matter of free choice but solemnly entered into—and it would not create two classes of marriage. There are already many different sorts of marriage ceremonies. No vows are made in the register office but solemn vows are exchanged in church.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the problem with any solemn vows made in church at present is that the courts view them as uniquely unenforceable.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is adultery a ground for annulment? If so, what would be the effect of the commitment in the new clause?

Mr. Leigh: I must be careful not to speak on behalf of the Holy Father or to enter into protracted ecclesiastical discussion with my hon. Friend as to what are or are not grounds for divorce under the teachings of Christian Churches. The Catholic Church allows annulment and even permits divorce. It holds that if one is divorced and wants to remain a practising member of the Catholic Church, one cannot remarry. There is little use delving deeper into theological matters—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) explained them well.
Amendment No. 119 is separate from my hon. Friend's new clause. which I hope the House will be minded to accept. If it does, the House can also accept my amendment. If the House does not adopt new clause 9, my amendment would still stand alone. Some hon. Members may feel unable to support my hon. Friend's new clause but I hope that they will support my amendment.
Under present divorce law, if one partner seeks a divorce on the ground of five years' separation, the innocent party who does not want a divorce is allowed to

tell the court that a divorce would cause him or her great general or financial hardship. Then the court might delay the divorce or, in a few cases, might stop it. The test is high. It is estimated by legal commentators that only one divorce has been prevented by the grave hardship bar in 25 years and that the financial hardship test has been successful in only half a dozen cases. Actions on the ground of five years' separation account for only 5 per cent. of divorces.
The Bill will allow individuals to cite hardship in all divorces, and the word "grave" is replaced by "substantial". The test could still be high. A new corpus of law will grow over the years and the courts will take their own view of "substantial", but there will still be a high hurdle to jump.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Am I correct in thinking that courts consider hardship, in relation to divorce after five years' separation, only in terms of financial hardship?

Mr. Leigh: Yes. Half a dozen cases related to financial hardship, and a court accepted general hardship on only one occasion in 25 years. Many of the Bill's opponents do not consider that the Lord Chancellor's concession of extending the hardship bar to all divorces amounts to much—it is hardly worth the candle. Even replacing the word "grave" with "substantial" would still present a high hurdle.
Having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister, we have tried over the past couple of weeks to devise a way of allowing people to register their conscientious objection to divorce. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Minister but if he has problem with the deed concept, perhaps there is another way. We want protection for people who are divorced against their will and who adhere to the concept of lifelong marriage. We alighted on the hardship bar, which already exists in clause 10.
My modest amendment would provide for the courts to consider hardship
attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble".
My amendment would not create two classes of marriage or require couples to sign deeds. It would merely provide that if a person holds the view that marriage is for life and does not want to be divorced, he or she could apply to the court to delay or prevent the divorce. Judging by the past 25 years, I suspect that no divorce would be prevented. There could be delay.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My hon. Friend's amendment meets one of the concerns felt by many hon. Members. If the person who applied for delay or prevention was—to use the familiar jargon—the party guilty of unreasonable conduct or even of adultery, would such an application not be allowed under my hon. Friend's amendment?

Mr. Leigh: My amendment would apply only to the person who was resisting divorce. I suppose that it is possible to conceive of rare circumstances in which the party resisting divorce was the one guilty of intolerable behaviour or adultery but says, "I have deeply held religious views and, despite my adultery, I do not want a divorce." That case would be impossible to argue in court,


so it would not arise. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because it is important to consider how the amendments might be interpreted by the courts.
The only people who would take recourse to the conscience clause under the hardship bar in clause 10 would be those who are innocent of any of the traditional grounds for divorce and want to register their objection to divorce. I offer the example of a middle-aged lady who has spent all her life building up a home and who suddenly discovers that she is being divorced against her will. She could tell the court, "I need more time to put my affairs in order." At present, she would have to meet the substantial hardship test in clause 10. The problem is that the courts, over the years, have interpreted hardship as that arising from the divorce process. They say that, when people complain of hardship, they are really complaining of the marriage breakdown. The court is not concerned about that and so it has been extraordinarily difficult for anyone to overcome the test. That is why it has been used only half a dozen times in 25 years.
If the House accepts my amendment, it will be much easier for people to go to court and to say, "I am being divorced against my will. I have deeply held religious views. Please listen to me and give me a bit more time," or, in extreme cases, "Prevent the divorce," which, I suspect, the courts will never accept. Hitherto, the practice has been for the courts, in any event, to allow divorce after five years, even if a party is innocent and wishes to stop the marriage. In that sense, the amendment is modest and I hope that, on that basis, the House will feel able to accept it.

Mr. Cohen: I oppose new clause 9. It is a dog's dinner of a new clause, and its consequences will be viciously reactionary. This country would end up with as many multiple versions of divorce law as multiple versions of the deeds. Presumably its supporters have in mind a standard deed, but they have not had the confidence to show it to hon. Members. That is an insult to us.

Mr. Alton: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clause's purpose. If someone were a member of a particular denomination, it is likely that he or she would draw up a deed that was in accordance with the teachings of their denomination, but people of no faith or other faiths might nevertheless still want to record their dissent in some way. The hon. Gentleman is right, therefore, to say that there could be different interpretations and formulations of the deed, depending on the conscience of the person concerned. That would inevitably be the case, precisely because this is a conscience clause. That is its strength, not a weakness.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that, under this new clause, we would have as many divorce laws as possible deeds.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am tempted to go further than that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) claimed that there would be different interpretations, so we would have not just different divorce laws, but different interpretations of the same words, which is peculiar.

Mr. Cohen: That again is a point well made.
Under the new clause, any sort of deed could be made by a couple when they get married. Some of those deeds will try to stop divorce under any circumstances, which is not right. In an intervention, I made the point about adultery, desertion and cruelty. That point is not in the new clause. I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight): where is it in the new clause? We may have various forms of deed, but it may not be in the deed that the two parties to the marriage sign, which is a serious flaw.
I remind the House what is in the new clause. Subsection (7) states:
(a) no court may make a divorce order in respect of the marriage to which that deed applies other than in any circumstances provided for within the deed;
(b) no divorce or annulment … shall be capable of recognition … unless the grounds on which it is obtained comply substantially with the circumstances provided for within the deed.
So the deed would overrule everything, and, as I have said, we do not know what will be in the deed. There will be many different deeds, interpreted in many different ways.
I support the notion and the idea that national law should take precedence over private deeds, even if they have religious backing. In many sectors, the acceptance of decent standards should be the norm. A person should not be trapped for ever in a spiteful, violent or desperately unhappy marriage. That should be a nationwide standard. No deed should be able to wipe that out.
I give just one example. People make mistakes when they get married. The person they have married may change from being loving to inflicting cruelty. In those circumstances, making a marriage for life or signing a deed for marriage for life may be viewed as a mistake, although I am not sure it is. Therefore, people in that position should be safeguarded and have the opportunity to get out of that desperately unhappy marriage.
The new clause is fundamentalist claptrap. It will be used by fundamentalists of all religions, and it could inflict great pain on partners. If passed, it could cause enormous heartbreak and misery, so I oppose it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To regard the new clause or the amendment as fundamentalist claptrap is strong language, but it is not justified by the arguments that have been advanced, which should be tackled on their merits.
I am not a lawyer or an expert in the different ways in which a marriage can be ended or can be said never to have existed in the first place, some years after people thought that they were involved in a perfectly valid marriage. I know of one couple who married with the intention of making a lifelong union. After some years and some children, they got divorced. Later, one of the parties to the marriage received a letter saying that the Church had decided that the marriage had not taken place in the first place, because one of the parties to the marriage had managed to convince the Church authorities that they had not been capable of making the decision to be married in the first place.
I pay tribute to the Catholic Church's role, from the Holy Father through to the ordinary member of that Church, but, frankly, that example shows how people can change their minds about being capable of making the


decision to get married in the first place. We should therefore accept that they are likely to be capable of changing their minds about the marriage vow they made in church and about the deed they might have signed in contemplation of the new clause.
Four or five hon. Members who have spoken in the debate are among those who voted or who acted as Tellers against the Bill's Second Reading, so we must understand that the proposals in the new clause or the amendment are almost certainly designed to improve the Bill, but that the hon. Members proposing the new clause and amendment wish that the Bill would not go through.
If the Bill did not go through, 75 per cent. of divorces would be quickie divorces on the ground of fault. People say that the idea of no fault is introduced by the Bill, but that is not right. The Bill says that the fault ground cannot be used in future. At present, it is possible to get divorced without fault. The two-year and five-year separations are examples.
We should consider the new clause and the amendment on their merits. The amendment has been supported by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on the ground that it will help to delay the divorce process. It will not end that process. I may have misheard him, or he may have misspoken, but the point was made that it would make divorce more difficult. It means either that people who may later want to be divorced will be caught and will be unable to be divorced because they have signed up to a deed, or a different form of marriage from the ordinary commitment that the marriage will go on until death, or it does not mean that.
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) proposes an alternative, and takes a different view on hardship. It is difficult to start to bring the hardship argument in. In either case, I should be interested to know whether the traditional reasons or justifications for a legal or an ecclesiastical end to a marriage would apply either in the hardship test that my hon. Friend proposes or in the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has tabled.
It is worth consulting the views of people who have a greater ecclesiastical standing than me—although, over my years here, some of my colleagues have been more forward in mentioning their Church connections than I have. I do not want anyone to believe that those of us who are relatively quiet about our work in the Church have any less strong views than anyone else about the importance of marriage, or about trying to make the marriage process easier, and the process of divorce less frequent.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend asked me a question and I shall try to answer it. The whole essence of my amendment is, that if someone goes to the court to ask for a hardship bar, he will not argue that his divorce should be based on fault or desertion—that is irrelevant. The hardship bar already exists.
All that that person will do is say, "Can I have some more time"—the court may well reject his request—"because I have a deeply held religious view about marriage, and I believe that it is only fair that I be given more time before the divorce takes place?" That person

will not go into the nature of the divorce; there will be no argument about adultery, desertion or anything else. I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to get anything like that into the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. Some of the issues relating to delay now come under clause 7, which we will consider during our discussions on later amendments.
I have deep sympathy with people who believe that their marriage could have continued, but, because one partner to the marriage decided that it could not, the marriage came to an end. Perhaps a longer delay would have made that more acceptable. I cannot judge that. However, having watched people who have been through that process, my sympathies go in a number of directions, because a number of issues matter.
I want to bring to the attention of the House what has been said by a number of ecclesiastical authorities. The first is:
The Bill has been strengthened during its difficult passage through Parliament to date in at least three key areas: there is now a longer waiting period in some circumstances"—
in a way, that meets some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle—
which more clearly signals the seriousness of marriage; a greater emphasis on reconciliation, offering a better prospect of saving savable marriages; and a statutory provision for marriage support services.
That was said by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster in a letter to The Times on 28 May.
It is worth noting a letter to the Prime Minister from the Family Law Bill Coalition, which said that the Bill
offers the best chance for a generation of scrapping a system which is widely misused and frequently harmful to the interests of children adults and families as a whole, and of achieving reforms which have a broad basis of support. This approach has been tried in other jurisdictions and is long overdue here. It would be a lost opportunity if the Bill were to be abandoned or rejected now.
That letter includes among its signatories Christine Eames, worldwide president, Mothers Union; James Richards, the director of the Catholic Children's Society; Rabbi Dr. Julian Jacobs, adviser to the Chief Rabbi on inter-faith matters; and Geoffrey Blumenfeld, the director of the Jewish Marriage Council. I shall not give all the names from the Anglican Church.
I have shown how a number of Church authorities are not arguing the option of a two-tier marriage. There is the marriage ceremony, which a number of us have been through—whether civil or religious—where we say that it is our intention that the marriage should last until death. The option is being put before the House today of a separate commitment, which people could opt into, to strike out a number of reasons for the marriage ending if either or both parties want a divorce.

Mr. Alton: I do not quarrel with the quotations that the hon. Gentleman has cited. However, does he accept that none of them addresses the new clause, because it had not been tabled when those letters were written?

Mr. Bottomley: I accept that. The question that I earlier put to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members was whether any of the reasons why people could go to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Please tell me in


arrears that the commitment I made was one that I was not capable of making," would be caught either by the amendment or by the new clause.
Until one of those hon. Members who voted against Second Reading but support either the new clause or the amendment can give me the answer to that question, people will still be able to change their minds, either about what they want to do for the rest of their lives, if they believe their marriage has come to an end—which is sad—or that they want in arrears to go back to the ecclesiastical authorities and say, "Can you please be convinced that I was not capable of making a commitment in the first place, either to the deed or to the marriage?"

Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) earlier made the point about annulment and what is done in accordance with a person's denomination or Church. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If, in the covenant at the time of drawing up the deed, someone writes in the proviso that he will be able to avail himself of annulment procedures, that is not a retrospective action—that person is saying in advance that he may seek, through the ecclesiastical authority of his Church, to annul the marriage if it does not succeed.
For someone from the Catholic tradition, that would undoubtedly mean that that person would disavow the right to be married again. That would be a decision entered into freely and fairly at the time of the marriage. That is why it is a matter of conscience—and one that should not trouble the hon. Gentleman too much, because it is something that will be decided by the two people getting married.

Mr. Bottomley: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, I do not think that he can be right. Is it possible for me to say at the time of my marriage in, let us say, the Roman Catholic Church, that the marriage is going to be for life, but then later on to go to the ecclesiastical authorities and try to convince them that I was not capable of making that commitment at the time, as I did not understand the nature of marriage or there was some other bar?

Mr. Alton: There may be a reason.

Mr. Bottomley: There may be a reason. If the hon. Gentleman confirms that it is possible to make a commitment and then later say that I was not capable of making that commitment, would the same thing apply to the deed that is the subject of the new clause?

Mr. Alton: Yes.

Mr. Bottomley: If so, what happens to those who have not made that commitment in the Roman Catholic Church, but, perhaps, in a register office? They would not be able to go to an ecclesiastical authority some years later and ask it to judge their state of mind some years earlier at the time they made the commitment. It shows that the new clause—not the amendment, which approaches the issues in a different way—is not helpful in trying to introduce a two-tier marriage.
What is worse, the new clause basically says to people that, when they are considering marriage, whether civil or religious, they should go through a list of reasons that are

traditionally used as justifications for ending a marriage, and knock them out in advance. It is rather like saying, "Do you intend your marriage to be short-term?" I do not think that people know in advance how they will feel later.
Even if we could manage to halve the number of divorces from 160,000 a year to 80,000, which would be highly desirable, we should do it by convincing people that they want their marriages to continue, rather than saying that, when they believe they have come to an end, they are not in a position to remarry.
I want to cite one or two further quotations because they are important for those who follow our debates.
It would be quite wrong if Catholic MPs were to be swayed in their view of the Lord Chancellor's proposals by incorrect information about the Catholic bishops' view … We can point out to legislators the bishops' positive response to the proposals made in the White Paper.
That was said by Monseigneur Kieran Conry of the Catholic Media Office on 20 October 1995. Again, that was before the new clause was tabled, but it gives the Church's view on trying to move forward to a happier way of allowing people to apply for divorce if they so choose.
The last quotation I want to share with the House—there could be more—is:
should Christians, and Catholics in particular, shun all attempts to reform the present divorce laws on the basis that divorce goes against the explicit statement of Christ: 'What God has joined together, let no man put asunder'.
That was a reference to Matthew 19, verse 6. The quotation continues:
I think not, because any attempt to lessen the harm done by divorce should be supported. That does not entail approving divorce but rather tolerating it as a lesser evil if it is the only way of ensuring the rights of the parties and the care and protection of children.
That was said by the Right Rev. Peter Smith, the Roman Catholic Bishop of East Anglia, in a letter to The Times on 5 November 1995.
All those quotations are in the context of a Church—although I am not of the same denomination, I regard myself as being in the same Church—where people make a commitment that marriage will go on until death ends it. The only occasion when some of the provisions in the Bill come into effect is when people find that their circumstances or their minds have changed. It is on those grounds that I believe that the House should not accept the new clause.
On slightly different grounds, the House should not accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. We should accept the advice of the leaders of our Churches, and get on with trying to take away some of the unnecessary misery caused by the current state of divorce law.

7 pm

Dr. Bray: I have a good deal of sympathy with the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). However, I think that there is a real problem in calling on the apparatus of the state—the courts—to enforce a declaration made privately, or, as she has acknowledged, very privately.
The approach of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has fewer difficulties about it. There are precedents for the idea of conscientious


objection as a recourse; the phrase, of course, comes from conscientious objection to military service, for which there is a well-developed apparatus of tribunals to judge whether the complaint is genuine, although there is not an enormous apparatus of appeal through the courts. Presumably such an apparatus could be introduced into a context like this one, although it requires some widening out. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is an interesting suggestion for consideration in the wider context of the law of marriage, rather than as a recourse to deal with some of the Bill's problems.
I am not prepared to go into the Lobby to support the amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but I think that it has real merit for future consideration.

Mr. Patten: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It strikes me as political correctness gone mad to seek to deny people, man or woman—in a society in which they have the freedom to do almost anything else they like—the freedom to put in their marriage contract that which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has proposed, or the provisions that are necessary for the hardship bar to be brought into play, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
Uniquely in my time in the House, this is the first occasion on which the Government have not stepped forward to support freedom of choice. Uniquely in my experience in the House, this Bill—for the first time—introduces the concept that there should be no fault and no responsibility in English law, in either the criminal code or the civil code. Although the Bill is important, today we are debating principles that go far beyond its provisions. We are saying that, in future—in this law as perhaps in later laws—we may well strip fault and responsibility out of laws when people are brought for judgment in the civil or criminal courts.
Those principles are why I found myself unable to support the Bill in the debate on Second Reading, and they are why I may find myself, uniquely—I use that word again—for me, alone in trying to resist the Bill, perhaps in a Teller-free zone.
The principles contained in the Bill deny freedom of choice, and strip away personal responsibility and fault.

Mr. Llwyd: rose—

Mr. Patten: No; I am coming to the end of my speech.
We have heard some frightening words. I do not want to terrify my hon. Friend the Minister too much, because he knows that he has my strong personal support, but we have heard many terrifying words today from the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about how, unless he gets this, that and the other, he will lead his troops into the Lobby against the Bill. I suspect that that is a political bottle-free series of threats.
It is absolutely right for hon. Members—these amendments have been supported by hon. Members of all political parties—to register their opposition to a landmark change in the way in which we do business and regard criminal and civil law.
I hope that, between now and the close of play today, my hon. Friend the Minister can persuade me; if not, I shall vote against the Bill, if Tellers can be found.

Mr. Boateng: I am rather saddened by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), not least because on many issues—I thought also on the issues of the importance of marriage and the importance to society of establishing stable family relationships—it was possible for hon. Members from both sides of the House to make common cause.
I well understand what lies behind this new clause, the amendment, and the concerns of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I had the opportunity to observe at close hand the commitment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle on this issue in Committee.
The approach of Opposition Members to the new clause and to the amendment is shaped by a desire for the Bill and for the House's deliberations to arrive at a goal and a place that do not undermine the institution of marriage, and that reflect the circumstances in which marriages are brought to an end.
In relation to new clause 9, Opposition Members believe that the creation of what would be—de facto and de jure—a two-tier marriage system is fundamentally corrosive of the institution of marriage. It would put the parties to a marriage in an absolutely impossible position, not least those parties who choose—many still so choose—to make their vows to each other within the context of a Christian or other religious ceremony.
It is quite wrong that couples who make that choice should find themselves faced with a law produced in this place that requires them to consider entering into this type of covenant or deed. That would not promote good marriages or create a good start to marriage.
For those reasons, Opposition Members—although it has found a ready echo among Conservative Members—have always put the emphasis on the importance of the House, at some stage, examining the issue of marriage preparation, and to do so in the most practical way. In view of the Bill's short title, clearly it was not possible to examine the issue during the course of our deliberations on this Bill, but we hope to do so at an early stage.
There are lessons to be learned about such preparation from work being done by various denominations and religious bodies. The work is important, practical and supportive of the institution of marriage, and it is succeeding in keeping people together when strains and stresses in the marriage are manifested.
For that reason, today we shall not join in the Lobby those who put their name to new clause 9.
As for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, I am bound to say that my experience of family law tells me that it will not in practice make any difference at all to what happens in court or to people's conduct. In those circumstances, I will not be voting for it. The view taken by other Opposition Members is a matter for them, and we shall have a free vote on this amendment.

Mr. Streeter: We have heard yet another interesting and stimulating debate. Once again, I believe that the House is at its best when there are free votes.
I am fully aware of the concerns of many hon. Members, and of many of those in another place about people who have deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is indissoluble. I share that view. The new clause and the amendments can be separated into two groups, which seek to meet this concern in very different ways. I shall deal briefly with each of them in turn.
I deal first with new clause 9 and amendment No. 10. By and large, we have had an interesting and constructive debate on new clause 9, although I did not agree with some of the language used by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I am afraid that the Government cannot accept new clause 9 or amendment No. 10, even though I personally have enormous sympathy with the motives of those who tabled them. However, I have grave reservations about their working in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) will be reassured to know that this is a matter of conscience, and will certainly be a matter for a free vote on Conservative Benches.
I believe that the marriage contract is already a contract made between one man and one woman for life. The amendment is saying that, in future, only some marriages would be regarded as being for life. Others would be made indissoluble until a particular circumstance occurred. It also implies that, where there was no deed, a couple would regard their marriage as a contract from which they might opt out at any time, and shrug off their responsibilities and walk away.
I can think of no more terrifying statement for the House to make than that the marriage contract made between a husband and wife is not to be regarded by them as being for life when they make it. This is the basis of our current marriage law, and would be seriously undermined by the amendment. People who believe in lifelong marriage have no need for such a deed. Several hon. Members have pointed out that people can already decide that they will not divorce, even if their relationship has broken down.
When I made my marriage vows in accordance with the 1662 Church service, I made them before God, and I meant them. I meant them then, and I mean them now. If I break those vows, I answer to a higher authority—on this occasion, the House will be pleased to hear that I do not mean the Chief Whip. I need say no more than that.
Were the provision included in the Bill, would not at least one half of a couple come under enormous pressure to sign such a deed, because not to do so would imply that that person did not take his or her marriage seriously or did not love their intended partner enough? Would it not be cruel to put young people under that sort of pressure? There might subsequently be disputes about whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily and in full knowledge of the implications. How will it support the institution of marriage to have couples litigating over the extent to which they have agreed to commit themselves to each other?
I agree with the notion that young couples need maximum preparation before marriage, but let us tackle that matter in response to the ideas produced by the working party. If pre-marriage preparation is the idea of the moment, let us embrace it fully.
My biggest concern is that those who do not sign such a deed might come to be regarded by society as having an inferior relationship, a second-class marriage. Couples

might come to believe that their marriage was somehow inferior and not worth sustaining. They could simply shrug their shoulders and walk away, saying, "After all, we have only a second-class marriage." That is not the message that we want the House to send. Let us not have first and second-class marriages, but strive to make all marriages first-class.
Hon. Members made a number of interesting points, and I shall deal with them quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston asked what it would mean for marriage vows if the Bill is passed tonight. I can tell her that marriage vows will mean exactly the same. Today, 45 per cent. of all divorces come under the heading of "unreasonable behaviour". Many such claims are exaggerated or fabricated. The current law encourages exaggeration, conflict and deception.
We are told that we have a two-tier marriage system because marriages can take place in a church or a register office, but under the civil law, all marriages are treated exactly the same for all purposes.
I have already mentioned that we shall be allowing a free vote on this matter.
I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and usually support much of what he says, but I believe that he is misguided in this instance. He talked about the speeding up of the divorce process. The very point of the Bill is to slow it down, to introduce a period of reflection and consideration, so that couples genuinely think about whether they are doing the right thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened to say that we should throw out the Bill lock, stock and barrel. By doing so, she would be throwing out the three-month cooling-off period, the period of reflection and consideration, and all the provisions for marriage counselling, which she supports.
Is it not a tragedy that those who would be attracted by the proposed deed would almost certainly be those who are capable of and more likely to enter into a strong and committed marriage in any event? Those outside it would be in difficulty, or have second-class marriages. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a telling point, asking whether it did not denote mistrust if one needed an extra deed to sign to show to what extent one was committed to one's partner.
7.15 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) referred to freedom of choice, but is it right for the House to vote for something that we believe to be harmful to the institution of marriage, which is the very bedrock of our society?
For all the reasons I have outlined, I cannot recommend that the amendment be supported.
Amendment No. 119—

Mrs. Maddock: Will the Minister state clearly how he sees his party voting on the issue? Will there be a free vote on amendment No. 119? There have been rumours that it will not be a free vote, but, if ever there was a matter of conscience, this is it.

Mr. Streeter: Obviously, I am not coming across as I thought I was. I have already said that there is to be a free vote on the first amendment and now on this amendment. The hon. Lady should not listen to rumours.
I deal now with amendment No. 119, which concerns an amendment to the hardship bar. Under current legislation, and under the terms of clause 10 as drafted, the court, when considering an application for an order preventing divorce, can already take into account hardship other than purely financial hardship.
However, the amendment clarifies the fact that the definition of hardship in the Bill includes hardship attributable to the fact that a person has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble. Bearing in mind the importance of this issue and the fact that it clearly raises issues of conscience, it is appropriate that the amendment is subject to a free vote. On this issue, the Government are neutral.
Personally, however, I should like to support the amendment, and shall do so. There are people with deeply held religious convictions who married in good faith, believing that
till death us do part
meant precisely that. The amendment does not, however, create two tiers of marriage, which I believe risks undermining rather than strengthening marriage.
In my view, it is right that "hardship" should include hardship attributable to the fact that a person has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble, and that such a person should be able to apply to the court under the hardship provision. It will then be for the court to decide. It will be a stiff test. Although this is a free vote, I shall be voting in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.

Dame Jill Knight: Bearing it in mind that we have a long way to go, and having listened to what has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Minister, who supported amendment No. 119, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF CHILDREN AND THEIR INTERESTS

—(1) The court may, in the exercise of its powers under section (Welfare of Children), appoint a guardian ad litem for a child if—
(a) it appears to the court on the evidence before it, that it may be appropriate for an order to be made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989; or
(b) there are existing proceedings in any court in England and Wales under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in relation to any child of the family in question.

(2) The guardian ad litem shall—
(a) be appointed in accordance with rules of court;
(b) be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child in the manner prescribed by such rules; and
(c) be appointed from a panel established under section 41(7) of the Children Act 1989.'.—[Mr. Llwydd]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Provision for separate representation for children (No. 3)—

—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales which relate to any matter in respect of which a question has arisen, or may arise, under—
(a) Part II;
(b) Part IV;
(c) the 1973 Act; or
(d) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.
(2) The regulations may provide for such representation only in specified circumstances.'.
Amendment No. 106, in clause 24, page 16, line 8, leave out 'and' and insert—
'(6B) Where there are one or more children of the family, the code must also require the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider:
(a) the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child; and
(b) whether and to what extent each child should be given the opportunity to express his or her wishes and feelings in the mediation.
(6C) A contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must also include.'.

Mr. Llwyd: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not fair to the hon. Member who has the Floor if there is a constant buzz of conversation.

Mr. Llwyd: New clause 10 seeks to give the court the power to provide for the separate representation of children and their interests in circumstances when it would appear to the court, on the evidence before it, that the interests of a child may be in conflict with those of either or both parents—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but it is clear that my earlier words were either not heard or not heeded. I should like silence, other than from the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Llwyd: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try again.
New clause 10 seeks to give the court the power to provide for the separate representation of children and their interests in circumstances when it would be appear to the court, on the evidence before it, that the interests of a child may be in conflict with those of either or both parents and that such a conflict presents a potential risk to the welfare of the child.
It is clear that in public law there are considerable benefits of separate representation. Under the Bill as drafted, clause 9 addresses the responsibility of the court to satisfy itself as to the arrangements for children under section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new clause would provide a bridge between the statement of arrangements for the children and the ability to appoint a guardian to represent their interests. It would cover many circumstances that are not at present covered by section 37 of the Children Act 1989, which allows for the appointment of a guardian only when the court is considering making a public law care or supervision order.
A considerable body of professional opinion—including judges, solicitors, family court welfare officers, guardians and child care social workers—fully supports the view that the lack of availability of a guardian ad litem in proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 represents a considerable void in the law relating to children who are involved in private law proceedings.
The Children Act advisory committee recommended the extension of the role of the guardian to cover proceedings under section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Indeed, judges have tried to appoint guardians when it is technically incorrect to do so, and many recent examples are available. There is also ample evidence that increasing numbers of children—particularly teenagers—need independent representation, although it is not appropriate to pursue the possibility of a care or supervision order for them. Many require help in protecting their financial, educational and emotional interests.
The new clause would facilitate agreements by diverting proceedings away from the court. It would give the court an independent view of the child's circumstances on which to base decisions about his or her welfare. It would extend the number of specified proceedings in which a guardian ad litem may be appointed, and it would provide a safety net for a relatively small but nevertheless important and vulnerable group of children.
The new clause would constitute a logical extension of the philosophy and principles laid down in the Children Act and would be entirely consistent with the requirements of article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which the Government are a signatory. During the passage of the Children Act in January 1989, the Government gave a commitment that the review of the arrangements for separate representation of children would be part of the Lord Chancellor's rolling programme of reform of family jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that the arrangements for panels of guardians ad litem and reporting officers would be reviewed in the light of experience, and the debate made it clear that it would be possible to review arrangements for the independent representation of children in all family proceedings.
Of course, my proposal would have a cost implication, but I am sure that it would be relatively modest and not too far reaching. It would introduce a vital provision for vulnerable children and young people who would not otherwise be properly represented, as it would give the court power to make such an order and it would provide for separate representation.
Although section 37 of the Children Act is a potential bridge between private and public law proceedings, it allows for the appointment of a guardian only if it appears to the court that it may be necessary for a care or supervision order to be made in respect of the child. Under the new clause, the court would have the power to do so without that proviso and it is entirely appropriate that it should be extended in that important way.
Experience since the implementation of the Children Act has shown that there are many circumstances in which courts have considered it necessary to appoint guardians in private law proceedings, but have found themselves hamstrung and unable to do so. Judges have gone as far as to try to appoint guardians when it was technically inappropriate.
Recent research by the Children's Society on the separate representation of children in private law proceedings found that the majority of respondents, including judges, felt that there was a conflict of interest between the child and his or her parents. So it is quite obvious that there is a void to be filled.
I fully support the amendment grouped with the new clause, and I should be happy if either was accepted. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Boateng: New clause 10 is a worthwhile amendment, which certainly follows on from our debates in Committee. The impact of divorce on children obviously gives rise to considerable concern. Experience shows clearly that the child's interest is best served when there is an opportunity to focus on his or her needs and for an interventionist role to be played, to ensure that that interest is secured. The new clause seeks to build on the guardian ad litem system and as such has much to commend it.
The resource implications are also worthy of consideration. One issue that the Government need to examine, both in relation to new clause 10 and generally in terms of the way in which resources are raised and applied, is whether there is scope in the system of court fees and payments for the raising of revenue to be applied specifically to that purpose. So the resource implications are modest and there is no reason why they cannot be met from the existing budget and through the capacity of the courts to meet such expenditure.
Experience has shown that the use of guardian ad litem in proceedings where children have an interest, by identifying the issues and seeking to ascertain where intervention by the various agencies can be most usefully applied, contributes to the harnessing and saving of resources.
So on balance, the new clause has a great deal to commend it. We look forward to the Minister's response. If it is not possible to take the matter forward in respect of the Bill, I hope that we shall be able to return to it in other contexts and generally—building on the other amendments and new clauses set down for discussion this evening—to make sure that the special needs and requirements of children are met and respected.

Mr. Streeter: I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his tireless efforts on behalf of children's organisations. Throughout the Bill's stages, he has spoken thoughtfully and argued persuasively on this vital area, which I know concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House. He has contributed to some significant changes in the Bill—all of which strengthen it—in order to assist the innocent victims of divorce: children.
I should also like to pay tribute to the children's organisations, which have conducted a worthy campaign for the interests of children to be taken into account in the Bill. While we may not always have been able to agree the details of changes, there has been nothing between us on the principles behind them.
The Government believe that the voice of the child should be heard in proceedings regarding his or her welfare. There are already a number of ways in which that is provided for. The voice of the child can be heard


through the report of a welfare officer under the Children Act 1989 and through the offices of the official solicitor in private law proceedings in the High and county court, and, under section 10(8) of the Children Act 1989, a child may bring his or her own application, be represented and apply for legal aid for such representation.
Expanding the guardian ad litem service in the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman's new clause, however, would duplicate the work of the family court welfare service, which provides welfare reports to the court in private law proceedings and which may be asked to ascertain and represent to the court the views of the child. Expanding the guardian ad litem service in that way would also require additional resources, as well as duplicating existing ones.
New clause 14, tabled by the official Opposition, which proposes a rule-making power to allow for change, is preferable to new clause 10, because the latter applies only to the court's consideration of the arrangements for the children, and would thus not extend to matters such as domestic violence, separation or divorce proceedings. Nor does it allow for any control of the procedure. For example, it does not express a specific intention on the type of cases in which such an appointment would be appropriate, and would allow for the appointment of both a guardian ad litem and a court welfare officer, who may be performing a similar function.
New clause 10 enables a court to appoint a guardian ad litem if it decides in the course of exercising its power under section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that it may need to exercise its powers under the Children Act or if there are already proceedings under the Children Act pending in relation to any child of the family. However, it provides for the guardian to be appointed by the court only in exercise of its powers under that new clause—which puts section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act in the Bill—and not in exercise of its powers under the Children Act. The court already has the ability to request a welfare report. New clause 10 does not specify whether that or the appointment of a guardian is to be preferred, and there might be duplication if a court welfare officer has already been appointed to report in the pending proceedings.
The Government would also wish to consult the children's organisations and those who currently represent the interests of children in court proceedings, in devising an effective system. That approach would be consistent with new clause 14.
Amendment No. 106 ties in with a number of amendments made to clause 24, which will be considered later. It proposes that the code of practice required for a contract with the Legal Aid Board, which is introduced by later amendments, should stipulate that mediators have in place arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider whether their children should have an opportunity to speak up during mediation to express their own wishes and feelings. The Government are happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Llwyd: In view of that assurance and the very thoughtful and precise way in which the Minister

responded, and as the Government prefer new clause 14, I shall not be boorish and seek to divide the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

WELFARE OF CHILDREN

`.—(1) In any proceedings for a divorce order or a separation order, the court shall consider—

(a) whether there are any children of the family to whom this section applies; and
(b) where there are any such children, whether (in the light of the arrangements which have been, or are proposed to be, made for their upbringing and welfare) it should exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any of them.

(2) Where, in any case to which this section applies, it appears to the court that—

(a) the circumstances of the case require it, or are likely to require it, to exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989 with respect to any such child,
(b) it is not in a position to exercise the power or (as the case may be) those powers without giving further consideration to the case, and
(c) there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of the child that the court should give a direction under this section,
it may direct that the divorce order or separation order is not to be made until the court orders otherwise.

(3) In deciding whether the circumstances are as mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the court shall treat the welfare of the child as paramount.

(4) In making that decision, the court shall also have particular regard, on the evidence before it, to—

(a) the wishes and feelings of the child considered in the light of his age and understanding and the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed;
(b) the conduct of the parties in relation to the upbringing of the child;
(c) the general principle that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the welfare of the child will be best served by—

(i) his having regular contact with those who have parental responsibility for him and with other members of his family; and
(ii) the maintenance of as good a continuing relationship with his parents as is possible; and
(d) any risk to the child attributable to—

(i) where the person with whom the child will reside is living or proposes to live;
(ii) any person with whom that person is living or with whom he proposes to live; or
(iii) any other arrangements for his care and upbringing.

(5) This section applies to—

(a) any child of the family who has not reached the age of sixteen at the date when the court considers the case in accordance with the requirements of this section; and
(b) any child of the family who has reached that age at that date and in relation to whom the court directs that this section shall apply.'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 22, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert


`once the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied.'.
Amendment (a) to the amendment, leave out 
`41 of the 1973 Act'
and insert
`(Welfare of children)'.
Amendment No. 12, in clause 9, page 7, line 32, leave out from 'section' to 'must' in line 34 and insert
`(Welfare of children)'.
Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
Amendment No. 13, in schedule 1, page 42, line 6, leave out
`41 of the 1973 Act'
and insert
`(Welfare of children)'.
Amendment No. 14, in page 42, line 21, leave out
`41 of the 1973 Act'
and insert
`(Welfare of children)'.
Amendment No. 15, in page 42, line 39, leave out
`41 of the 1973 Act'
and insert
`(Welfare of children)'.
Government amendment No. 63, in page 42, line 42, at end insert
`The fourth exemption—

'The fourth exemption

3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(7)(d) are that—

(a) the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied;
(b) an occupation order or a non-molestation order is in force in favour of the applicant or a child of the family, made against the other party;
(c) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements;
(d) the applicant has not been able to reach agreement with the other party about those arrangements and is unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future; and
(e) a delay in making the order applied for under section 3—

(i) would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family; or
(ii) would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant.'.

Amendment (a) to the amendment, in sub-paragraph (a), leave out

`41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

'(Welfare of children)'.

Amendment No. 16, in schedule 8, page 72, leave out lines 27 to 46.

Amendment No. 17, in schedule 10, page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—

'In section 41, in subsection (1) the words "divorce or" and "or a decree of judicial separation" and in subsection (2) the words "divorce or" and "or that the decree of judicial separation is not to be granted.".'.

Mr. Llwyd: The new clause sets out the principle that parents who are divorcing should have regard to the interests and views of their children. It enshrines in the

Bill a right for children in such circumstances to be consulted about important arrangements that their parents seek to make for their future, which is of vital interest and great importance to children. The views and opinions that children hold should be taken into account when important decisions are made about their lives.
The new clause brings England and Wales into line with the situation pertaining in Scotland under section 6 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995: the so-called Scottish duty. It is right to consider the interests of children and their views at a very early stage. Indeed, if parents fail to agree arrangements for children and the issue goes to court, the court must consider the children's ascertainable views. It is extremely important that the voice of the child is heard.
The provisions of the new clause were the subject of lengthy discussion in Committee. In effect, the present wording of the Bill draws together several important concepts, which were highlighted and discussed in Committee. We have all heard of the so-called amicable divorce. If such a thing exists, it is a description of the conduct of the divorcing parties towards each other. I do not believe that an amicable divorce exists in the minds of children.
Every year, tens of thousands of children and young persons go through the terrible trauma of divorce—frequently even blaming themselves for the father or mother's inability to make a go of it and stay together. It is therefore vital that children's voices are heard loudly—not in a peripheral manner or as an afterthought, but central to the process. New clause 12 is of such importance because it accords children and young people the right to be heard.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Does he agree that, on many occasions, parents have very little idea of the children's views—partly because they have been frightened to ask and partly because the children are frightened to say? One of the important elements in what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve is that those views, once ascertained, should be relayed back to the parents. I do not know how the system would work, but it is important that at a round table or whatever, the children's views should be made available, not only to the court but to the parents.

Mr. Llwyd: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the new clause's wording, he will see that that important aspect is covered. There will be circumstances in which a child feels unable to express a view because he or she does not want to be seen to be siding with one parent or the other. Indeed, a child may be afraid to express a view. Under the new clause, a child would be asked to express a view and would be able to do so if he or she wanted. The new clause also includes references to age, experience and so on, because clearly very young children might not be able to express a view adequately. That is a step forward and I accept the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful intervention.

Sir Jim Lester: I support what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, especially in respect of talking to children about what they want. There seems to be a presumption in other legislation that the maternal case should always take priority. Many of us know from practical experience that it is better for children involved


in divorce to have good contact with both parents, and with grandparents, uncles, aunts and the wider family. It is a tragedy that so many fathers lose contact with their children, possibly until they become old enough to want to seek out their fathers. That is one of the sad aspects of divorce and it is certainly harmful, especially to children under 16.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree and I shall discuss that in a moment. New clause 12 accords children and young people rights to be heard on important issues such as schooling, job prospects, where they will reside, with whom they will reside and so on. That provision is qualified in respect of age, experience and intelligence. It will protect children's well-being during and even before family break-up, especially in respect of their relationship with both parents, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned.
Some 40 per cent. of children involved in family break-up lose touch with one parent altogether, which may involve 150,000 children a year. That is one of the most disastrous but routine consequences of divorce and family break-up. A relationship with both parents is a basic right for children. To lose a parent is to lose part of oneself.
The adversarial structure of the courts provides little or no incentive for parents to facilitate the child's relationship with the other parent. Notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining information on judgments and the reasons for them in private proceedings under the Children Act 1989, it seems that the aim of the Act, which was to give both parents responsibility for the child, is still not generally put into practice by the courts; nor is it fully understood by the public. The public still think that making arrangements for children means deciding which of the parents will "own" the child. Hon. Members have often referred to one parent having custody—a notion that was supposed to have been abolished by the Children Act.
The latest edition of the "Procedural Handbook" to the Children Act, produced by Harris and Scanlan in 1991, states:
It is generally accepted that it is in the child's interest to maintain his relationship with both parents and this will not be promoted by an order which may be a formality but which nevertheless appears to favour one parent over the other. Anything which will tend to assist the parties to keep separate the issues of being a spouse in conflict and being parents will better enable a child's relationship with his parents to flourish.
The evidence overwhelmingly points to a lack of concern by the public and the courts about children's loss of parents. Residence orders are often understood as custody and may be in favour of only one parent. The other parent may be given a contact order to visit, or be visited by, the child at weekends, for example. That is not sufficient to exercise meaningful parental responsibility. The courts are often reluctant to enforce that minimal contact.
The new clause would encourage the courts and parents to take the preservation of the child's relationship with both parents much more seriously, by requiring it to be addressed explicitly, rather than implicitly, as seems to be the case at present. Subsection (4)(c)(ii) would ensure the maintenance of the child's relationship with each of its parents. That would encourage both parents and courts to

give priority to preserving and enhancing that all-important relationship. The evidence strongly suggests that a continuing relationship with both parents is beneficial to the child, its self-esteem and future well-being.
Continuing relationships with both parents and frequent regular contact, as provided for in subsection (4)(c)(i), should, of itself, limit the sense of loss and damage to children after break-ups. Much else could follow—a more secure child who will achieve more, and who will be less likely to get into trouble and more likely to benefit from greater financial security. We must remember that it is the parents who are getting divorced, not the children.
Subsection (4)(a) adds an extra qualification in respect of the child's wishes and feelings, that they should be considered
in the light of … the circumstances in which those wishes were expressed".
There are well-known instances where unreliable confessions have been given by adults under pressure. When so much hangs on their wishes and feelings, children may come under severe pressure and may gain the impression that they must choose between two parents whom they love. About 25 per cent. of children may be under an injunction to denounce one parent. The additional qualification will allow welfare officers, mediators and the courts to take into account the known views of the parents in relation to their children's contact with the other parent, and the likelihood that they may be in a position to impose those views on the child, when considering how to interpret the child's wishes.
7.45 pm
I have argued consistently in Committee about every limb of this important new clause. It has the full support of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, to which I am grateful for its assistance, and the Children's Charities Consortium, which has been supportive. Finally, I thank Dr. Andrew Broadbent for his assistance.
I commend this all-important new clause to the House. Without it, the Bill will be deficient. This is a Family Law Bill, which means that it must cover both parents and children. If we do not cater for the children, who are often the victims of divorce, we fail in our duty. I urgently commend new clause 12.

Mr. Boateng: New clauses 12 and 14, with amendment No. 106, are an important package of improvement to the Bill. The Government's response to date gives one cause to celebrate because when we examined the substance of new clause 12 and new clause 14—which the Minister said during the debate on new clause 10 that he will accept—in Committee, the Government's response to them and to amendment No. 106, which deals with mediation, was less than satisfactory
.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made a considerable contribution in Committee to protecting and furthering the interests of children. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey


and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and my hon. Friend from Nottingham, Sherwood—

Mr. Peter Luff: Just Sherwood.

Mr. Boateng: That is in Nottinghamshire, is it not?

Mr. Paddy Tipping: indicated assent.

Mr. Boateng: Quite so. I have not forgotten my Robin Hood and all that flows from that.
In Committee, hon. Members returned repeatedly to the interests of children. We recognised, as the Government have now recognised, the central role of children in the Bill. By the turn of the century 3.7 million children will have experienced at least one parental divorce. The impact on a child of its parents divorcing is considerable. The valuable research that has been carried out in this area highlights the need for effective multi-agency intervention to counter the negative impact of divorce on children. Perhaps in the past too little attention has been paid to supporting children whose parents have separated. All too often it is a neglected family justice matter and a neglected mental health issue. It is good to know that in the House there is at last developing a consensus on the need for intervention and the need for a legislative framework in which that can take place.
The Morton commission, a royal commission on marriage and divorce, concluded that it was right to accept that the breakdown of family relationships could often lead to emotional disturbance in children and could sometimes lead to anti-social behaviour. It concluded that it was essential that after a divorce everything possible should be done to mitigate the effects upon the children of the disruption to family life. It is only now, many years after the deliberations of that commission, that the House is turning its attention to how that might best be achieved.
The White Paper recognised that there was an issue but seemed uncertain, as does the unamended Bill, about how it might best be addressed. I well remember the response of the then Minister when this issue was raised in Committee. There was a willingness to listen but, as was often the case in Government responses at that time, the willingness to listen was not followed by a willingness to act. On the contrary—at that time, for reasons that are not entirely clear but which have become clearer as the hours, minutes and days of this busy week have passed, the Government were strangely unwilling to act to meet the concerns that were expressed in Committee.
There has been, albeit at a late stage, a recognition of the importance of the package that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and I have constructed, with the active assistance of the Children's Charities Consortium. I, too, should like to associate my party with the words of appreciation from all parts of the House of that body. It has striven with great zeal and diligence to further the interests of children. That is no wonder, because as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study "Children Speak" stated in 1994, all too often what emerges from a study of the divorce system is a feeling by the child that, "Nobody listens to me." At least now, as a result of the House's consideration of the Bill, somebody will be obliged to

listen. If there was nothing else—mercifully, much else has been gained from the process—the House could draw a certain degree of satisfaction from that in itself.
The Opposition feel that this issue needs to be kept under constant review. The Government have accepted that an advisory body should be established to advise the Lord Chancellor on these matters. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government have taken up an idea that we put forward on Second Reading and have established such an advisory body.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman says that this issue needs to be kept under constant review. What exactly does he mean? The arrangements that are made at the beginning of a divorce are often made in the shadow of the most extraordinary bitterness and hostility between the parents, and in those circumstances the court flounders. Later, however, when passions have cooled and other arrangements have been made by the parents, it is absolutely indispensable that the voice of the child should be heard again. Is that what the hon. Gentleman means when he speaks about matters being under constant review?

Mr. Boateng: I am happy to address that point. The constant review of which I spoke ought to be carried out to see exactly how the clauses and the regulations that are made under them work in practice in the interests of the child. One of the values of the advisory body that was established under the Children Act 1989 has been the way in which it has been able to examine the legislation in practice and to suggest practical ideas on how it might be improved and how the Government might, where necessary, legislate in future to improve and develop good practice in the light of experience. That is what I meant, and the advisory body ought to be given an important role in that area. We are establishing a welcome framework for regulations and we need to make sure that the content of the regulations is right and apt and that there is a subsequent process of review and monitoring when they are put into effect. I know that in Committee the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had a particular interest in the role that should be played in relation to children. I take his point entirely.
An important matter that we are not currently debating—I must take care not to stray out of order—is dealt with by amendment No. 106, which helps to assist in the development of how the interests of children should best be catered for within the context of mediation, an issue that considerably exercised the Committee. Much work remains to be done in developing mediation in this area.
Mediation has an enormously important role to play and it has enormous potential, and I want to give credit to the work that has been done. There is a need to build on that work to see how the interests of the child can best be brought to the fore and kept in the frame during the mediation process. Credit should be given to the important work done by National Family Mediation, with support from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, in looking at the rapid development in thinking on the involvement of children in mediation. It looked at the issue of training, so that mediators are better equipped to deal appropriately with the interests of children during mediation. The matter requires attention, resources and a commitment from the Government.
The amendments are to be welcomed as part of the package that I outlined earlier, but it is important to state that they are only a beginning. There is still a long way to go before we can be satisfied that everything is being done that ought to be done for children who are the victims of parental separation. It must no longer be a neglected family justice issue, but one that is central to our concerns in this House and outside.

8 pm

Mr. Streeter: I am pleased to respond to the debate, and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his sterling efforts in tabling an amendment that the Government are pleased to accept. I agree that there is no more important task than ensuring that children's interests are protected as fully as humanly possible. The debate was slightly ruined by the rather unfortunate personal attack on my immediate predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has been tireless over the years in championing children's causes, and we should pay tribute to him.

Mr. Boateng: I would hate it to go on the record that I had made a "personal attack" on the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). It was not a personal attack—it was a political attack. There could not have been a more obdurate Minister in relation to the matter. Had he been prepared earlier to take a more conciliatory approach towards the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we would not have reached the present difficulties. It was not a personal attack, but a political attack—and a well deserved one.

Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's apology.
The amendments make clear in the Bill the links between divorce procedures and procedures under the Children Act 1989. New clause 12 also extends the list of factors currently in section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that a court should take into account when deciding whether to exercise its powers under the Children Act. These now include: requirements to regard children's welfare as paramount; that the court should have regard to the wishes and feelings of the child concerned; the principle that, in addition to the child's welfare being best served by having regular contact with those with parental responsibility, there should also be regular contact with other members of the family; and the requirement for the court to have particular regard to any risk to the child that may be caused by the actual or proposed arrangements for the child's future.
I understand that the amendments have the full support of the children's organisations. They clarify the court's position and that of children in the divorce process. They provide for even greater protection of children's interests—and children are, of course, the innocent victims of divorce. I am pleased to support these worthwhile amendments.
The Government tabled amendment No. 22 simply to clarify that the requirements of section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—the duty of the court to

consider whether there are children of the family and, if there are, the arrangements to be made for them—must have been satisfied before a separation order can be converted into a divorce order under clause 4. The amendment ensures that any children born after a separation order has been made are taken into account by the court when considering the application for a divorce order under clause 4.
Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 63 introduce into schedule 1 a further exemption to the requirement of clause 9 that financial arrangements must be decided upon before a divorce or separation order can be granted. It will apply where there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force and in favour of the applicant for ancillary relief, or a child of the family, against the respondent. For this exemption to apply, the requirements of section 41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 must have been satisfied, the applicant must have tried to reach agreement relating to the parties' financial affairs but been unable to do so and be unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future, and it must be the case that delay would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child or seriously prejudicial to the applicant.
The Government believe that it would be wrong for a divorce to be denied on the ground that financial arrangements had not been settled when domestic violence or other harmful conduct by the respondent is, or has been, present in the family, provided that the applicant has made every effort to comply with the requirements as to the parties' financial arrangements for the future. The applicant for ancillary relief should not have to wait until the molestation causes ill health, disability or injury before he or she can apply for an exemption, as would be the case without the amendments, which I am happy to support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 14

PROVISION FOR SEPARATE REPRESENTATION FOR CHILDREN (No. 3)

`.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations provide for the separate representation of children in proceedings in England and Wales which relate to any matter in respect of which a question has arisen, or may arise, under—

(a) Part II 
(b) Part IV;
(c) the 1973 Act; or
(d) the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978.

(2) The regulations may provide for such representation only in specified circumstances.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15

PROVISION FOR THIRD PARTIES TO ACT ON BEHALF OF VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (No. 3)

'.—(1) Rules of court may provide for a prescribed person, or any person in a prescribed category, ("a representative") to act on behalf of another in relation to proceedings to which Part IV applies.

(2) Rules made under this section may, in particular, authorise a representative to apply for an occupation order or for a non-molestation order for which the person on whose behalf the representative is acting could have applied.

(3) Rules made under this section may prescribe—

(a) conditions to be satisfied before a representative may make an application to the court on behalf of another; and
(b) considerations to be taken into account by the court in determining whether, and if so how, to exercise any of its powers under Part IV when a representative is acting on behalf of another.

(4) Any rules made under this section may be made so as to have effect for a specified period and may make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the expiry of the specified period.

(5) Any such rules may be replaced by further rules made under this section.'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 59.

Mr. Boateng: We have now reached that part the Bill that seeks to address specifically an issue that is of considerable concern and reflects a growing phenomenon—that of domestic violence. One in four crimes of violence reported to the police is the result of a woman being assaulted in her home by the man with whom she lives. A woman is four times as likely to be the victim of violence in the home as of mugging, and yet research suggests that only 2 per cent. of attacks on women in the home are reported to the police.
Within the context of those horrific statistics, upwards of 750,000 children are caught in the crossfire of domestic violence. That is the scale of the problem that we are required, as a House, to address. Zero tolerance of domestic violence must become the norm.
I am pleased to say that, throughout the country, examples are multiplying of local authorities developing, in conjunction with a broad cross-section of agencies in the voluntary and statutory sectors, effective policies designed to combat this especially pernicious form of violence—in very many cases, as a result of initiatives taken by Labour-controlled councils. I am glad to say, however, that they are increasingly supported by the cross-party alliance.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), who was outstanding among her colleagues in Committee for being the only one of their number prepared to support the precursor of the amendment that we are discussing. That is a matter of record, and it is one that the House and the country should note, because the time has come for us to be prepared, as a House, to take strong measures in support of existing multi-agency initiatives and to extend police and other agency powers in that regard.
That is what new clause 15 seeks to do. It seeks to build on a recommendation of the Law Commission, following its consideration of domestic violence, and to build on the work of the Home Affairs Select Committee—on which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) served with such distinction—to create, on a pilot basis, an opportunity for local strategies to develop geared towards combating domestic violence.
The new clause will enable a third party—usually, but not necessarily, a police service—to take legal action on the part of the victim of domestic violence. The need is obvious, because all too often the victim of domestic violence feels peculiarly vulnerable and therefore unable, because of the oppression she faces daily, to take action herself. It is a radical proposal—a departure from the existing processes and procedures of the court.

Mr. Marlow: I know that the police are very wary of getting involved in domestic disputes. Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence from the police that they would be happy to have this power?

Mr. Boateng: Certainly. Interestingly, when the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence on that subject, support was expressed, not least, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear, by the Police Federation, the representative of the men and women working on the ground, which said that it would welcome such a power.
The Association of Chief Police Officers properly mentioned resource implications. We have sought to tackle the resources issue as follows. It is our proposal, contained in this amendment, that several pilot schemes should be conducted by the Lord Chancellor at the instigation of his Department. Such schemes would be conducted in areas where there was already good practice, where there was a multi-agency approach involving the local social services, the local police and the refuge movement, and build on the co-operation that is already developing along those lines in many places.
8.15 pm
Obviously, the local authority, the police authority, chief police officers and chief officers of social services would consider their role and take resource implications into account before making an application to the Lord Chancellor for exercise of authority given to the Lord Chancellor under new clause 15. Similarly, the Lord Chancellor would satisfy himself that the resources were in place alongside the policy in order to make the new clause an effective vehicle for bearing down on those who persist in using violence as a means of terrorising and oppressing their partners.
I pay tribute to those working in this area. I am grateful for the advice and briefing given by the Northampton Domestic Violence Forum, which, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may know, is working in this area. It has developed an inter-agency strategy group for domestic violence in Northamptonshire. It is designed to provide a variety of co-ordinated responses, including encouraging women to seek advice and support, providing information and advice to victims of domestic violence and protecting women in their homes, as well as providing emergency and longer-term accommodation for victims, recognizing


the special needs that exist by virtue of disability or cultural or religious distinctions and recognising the importance of working to change the behaviour of violent men.
It was suggested sometimes in Committee that to talk about domestic violence was to be anti-men. Nothing can be further from the truth. To talk about domestic violence and the need to combat violence in the home is to recognise that some men have a real problem about violence against women and need to be set right. They need to understand that, if they persist in beating up on the people with whom they live, they will be subject to the full rigours of the law, that the people they live with are entitled to the full protection of the law and that they need to get help for the problems that they have in that regard.
One of the attractive things about the work being done in Northamptonshire is that it is not only about protection of the woman, vital although that work is and although it must be given top priority; it also recognises that men have a job of work to do in looking at themselves and changing their own conduct so that they do not repeat it with other women in future after the woman they happen to be violent to at the moment has been protected.

Sir Michael Neubert: If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to make clear that he is not anti-men in the context of violence, will he acknowledge that there are cases where men are the subject of assault and violence by women? One such case has come to my attention in my constituency.

Mr. Boateng: There may well be such cases, but they pale into insignificance when compared with the number of men who beat up women and who get away with it. The hon. Gentleman must excuse me if I do not get in high dudgeon about the number of men who are beaten up by women, because it is a remarkably small number.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real concern is that nine out of 10 domestic violence incidents involve violence of men against women? Every week two women are murdered by their husbands. Is it not that concern that should be dominant in our minds?

Mr. Boateng: I endorse wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend has said. I have worked in family law for about 20 years and I began my career by working for a woman called Erin Pizzey, who ran one of the first refuges in west London. It astounds me that it is only when women are beginning to make some considerable gains in this area—in terms of winning public recognition of the fact that this is something that needs to be addressed and that it is important that we take concerted action to bear down on these violent men—that instances of men who have been beaten up by women are brought to the attention of hon. Members. It is rather interesting. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) must understand that Labour Members would be a little more receptive to his point if it were not made in the context in which it is made—years of shameful neglect by the House of the issue of domestic violence against women.

Sir Michael Neubert: Should not the hon. Gentleman recognise that we are here to oppose, condemn and

deplore the act of violence by whomsoever commits it? In labouring the point—with which none of us disagrees—he is making the same mistake as those who talk about terrorists as being exclusively men when, as we know, regrettably, a few are women.

Mr. Boateng: With the utmost of respect, I prefaced my remarks with references to zero tolerance of domestic violence, from whatever source. It was the hon. Gentleman who raised the issue of the number of attacks by women on men. I shall move on, so long as he is prepared, likewise, not to labour this point.
The important work that is being done by the Northampton Domestic Violence Forum involves the police; it involves social services; it involves the magistrates courts, whose powers in this area are extended by the Bill; and it involves the local housing departments. If we are to develop an effective multi-agency strategy, it is necessary for us to harness the resources that are made available to homeless families. The Northampton experience is just one example of good practice that is occurring throughout the country.
I am glad to say that this new clause enjoys the support of the Women's Aid Federation of England, which says that it will contribute to an improved package of care and help from all relevant agencies. It welcomes the capacity of the Lord Chancellor to initiate pilot schemes that maximise the effectiveness of police action and the safety of victims. I thank the federation for the valuable work that it has done in protecting women, day in and day out, from domestic violence and in shaping the Bill. In that spirit, I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to support the amendment enthusiastically. Domestic violence has no place in our society. Domestic violence is primarily an issue where men inflict violence on women—although I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). Too many men in our society feel that it is their right physically to intimidate or to beat their women. Tonight, we must send a clear signal that this is not acceptable and that it will not be tolerated. Domestic violence is not a right-wing or a left-wing issue; it is not a Conservative or a Labour issue—it is an issue of concern for all hon. Members who serve in the House.
In Committee, the Government resisted calls to give powers to the police and to other authorised persons to act on behalf of the victims of domestic violence. Now that Labour Members have thought again about the wording of their amendment, we are happy to accept it.
I pay tribute to the Women's Aid Federation in Bristol, which I had the privilege of visiting less than two weeks ago. The time that I spent with the federation in discussing this important issue has helped to shape our decision tonight. This does not mean that the concerns expressed by the Government in Committee no longer hold true. The Government have no wish to oppose any measure that would prove an effective weapon in the armoury of those battling against domestic violence.
Our concern arises from the disagreement that exists among those who have considered the question of enabling the police to seek civil remedies on behalf of others as to whether this would prove a useful weapon in the fight against domestic violence. The proposal to grant police powers to seek civil remedies on behalf of those


suffering domestic violence has its origin in the Law Commission report of 1992. However, the Home Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into domestic violence in 1993 rejected the proposal, as did the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill.
There was, and remains, concern that the police have neither the resources nor the expertise to take on this role. Interest groups were also divided on this issue, some fearing the further disempowerment of women already trapped in situations over which they have little control. In light of these considerations, it was decided not to include such a provision in the Bill. Whatever the pros and cons of the third party approach to attacking domestic violence, it is clear that we are not yet in a position where it is wise to embark immediately on this course. However, the Government readily accept that knowledge and experience in this area is growing all the time. For example, police domestic violence units are now much more developed and expert in the field than they once were.

Mr. Marlow: While I accept everything that has been said and agree that we ought to do what we can to deal with the problem of domestic violence, I am concerned about third parties being involved. It is one thing for the police and for social services to be involved, but is there a possibility that politically correct pressure groups could home in on a victim and use her to make their political points before a court? Is my hon. Friend confident that the amendment could not be used in such a way?

Mr. Streeter: I have no time for political correctness for its own sake. My hon. Friend will be delighted that the Lord Chancellor will shape these rules, with wide consultation—I am sure that he will find that reassuring.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the police in developing domestic violence units. All hon. Members will admit that there is still some way to go in this regard. The Government remain of the view that there may need to be a good deal more thought, discussion and research before any rules are made under the new clause. My hon. Friend's concerns will be listened to carefully.
The Government also accept that the proposers of the amendment appear, at last, to have recognised that the amendment does not prescribe that the police shall act as the representatives, and that others may more appropriately be able to do it in consultation with the police. It makes provision for the piloting of any rules made. It may well be that a measure of agreement will emerge among those concerned with the prevention of domestic violence as to the need for the provision of third party action in the way envisaged by the new clause. In addition, suitable pilot schemes may be devised. It therefore does not seem sensible to have to wait for a further legislative opportunity to provide such a rule-making power.
Government amendment No. 59 simply makes a technical change to clause 60. It makes it clear that the provisions of the clause do not apply to rules of court made under the Act that the Bill will become,
or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARTS II AND III

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 1, line 12, leave out `to save it' and insert

`, whether by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 1, line 22, after 'end', insert
`; and
(d) that any risk to one of the parties to a marriage, and to any children, of violence from the other party should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished.'.
A similar amendment was moved in Committee. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all persons exercising any function under parts II and III of the Bill are obliged to take into account, as one of the guiding principles of the legislation, the need to remove or diminish the risk to which it refers.
A number of my hon. Friends who are present now were present when, for the first time, the Committee dealt with the issue of violence. If memory serves me well, we spent more than half a day debating that issue, and the Government took us to task repeatedly for raising it. We were told that it was unnecessary and inappropriate, and had no practical meaning or significance. We were asked for examples of its significance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—she is not present now, but she made an important contribution then, and has spoken on related issues today—and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) spoke to the amendment, as did I. Each and every one of us gave examples, drawing on the experience of organisations in our constituencies. We sought to develop the argument in favour of a principled stand against domestic violence in connection with parts II and III of the Bill, but on each occasion our arguments were rejected.
We were asked what relevance the amendment had to information meetings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston)—who is currently working with a Select Committee outside the House—recounted how she had appeared in court on behalf of a victim of domestic violence. Not only was the perpetrator present in court; he renewed his threats, and his attack on the victim, within the precincts of the court.
Such information sessions represent an innovation. No one quite knows how they will work out in practice. We asked time and again what sort of premises would be used for the purposes of information sessions. We thought—and the Minister specifically declined to rule it out—that the Government might want to use cubicles in social security offices for one-to-one sessions, that being their concession to the need for privacy. Such an idea is ironic in itself: anyone who has ever visited a social security office knows that scant privacy is provided by the cubicles. The experience is very public, and all too often it is humiliating and degrading.
In such circumstances, with direct free public access to the buildings, there is a real danger that domestic violence might occur. Those whom the legislation makes


responsible for arranging information sessions must take into account any risk to one of the parties, or the children, from the other party, and such risks
should, so far as reasonably practicable, be removed or diminished.
I have given one example, but many others can be drawn from the courtroom and, indeed, the Lord Chancellor's Department.
This important amendment sets out our principled opposition to domestic violence, as a House and a society, and our determination—
so far as reasonably practicable
to remove the risk of domestic violence from the parties and the children.

Mr. Streeter: The provision of protection from domestic violence has always been at the heart of the Bill. Indeed, the Government's determination to do something about it is evidenced by the speed with which the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill of 1995 were largely reintroduced as part IV of this Bill.
In Committee—as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) rightly said—the Government rejected the idea of putting this duty into the general principles clause: we felt that domestic violence was catered for adequately in part IV, and indeed it is well catered for. But I am pleased to report that, following my conversations with the various interest groups that are expressing their concerns about domestic violence, we will happily go the extra mile and include a reference to the need to remove or diminish the risk of domestic violence, so far as reasonably practicable, during the divorce process. The Government accept that the potential for domestic violence will be present for some at a number of points in the divorce and separation process, and that it is right for those exercising functions in connection with the process to take that into consideration.
I gained some personal knowledge of the devastation to family life that the presence of violence in the home can bring through church-based counselling in the inner city of Plymouth in the early 1980s. In those days I was able to see life in the raw, and through that experience I developed a deep-seated loathing for what we now call domestic violence. I personally am pleased to support the amendment, and the Government are committed to doing what they can in the Bill to support effective measures to provide protection from domestic violence for all who need it.

Mr. Boateng: The Minister's commitment is well known and undoubted. I appreciate the spirit and tone of his acceptance of the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ORDERS ARE MADE

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 30, after '(6)' insert 'or (13)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.

Mr. Streeter: At present, under clause 4, if a court is considering an application for a divorce order and a

separation order, it will proceed as if it were considering only the divorce application, except in certain circumstances.
Amendment No. 19 extends those circumstances to include a situation where the period for reflection and consideration in the case of the divorce order has been extended by six months. Under the terms of the amendment, a court would be able to proceed with the separation order in those circumstances. That would also permit a financial provision or property adjustment order to take effect where it could not otherwise do so because there were no exceptional circumstances and it would not have been just and reasonable for it to take effect earlier.
Amendment Nos. 20, 21 and 23 bring the time periods of clause 4 in line with clause 7, which was amended in Committee to provide for a six-month extension to the period for reflection and consideration, in certain circumstances. It ensures that parties cannot circumvent the six-month extension by obtaining a separation order after 12 months and immediately applying to convert it into a divorce order.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

CONVERSION OF SEPARATION ORDER INTO DIVORCE ORDER

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 2, line 35, after `while' insert

'—

(a)'

No. 21, in page 2, line 36, at end insert '; or

(b) subsection (3A) applies.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 2, line 42, at end insert

`once the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), leave out

'41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

'(Welfare of childreni)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—

'(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), this subsection applies if—

(a) there is a child of the family who is under the age of sixteen when the application under this section is made; or
(b) the application under this section is made by one party and the other party applies to the court, before the end of such period as may be prescribed by rules of court, for time for further reflection.

(3B) Subsection (3A)—

(a) does not apply if, at the time when the application under this section is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, made against the other party;
(b) does not apply if the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family;


(c) ceases to apply—

(i) at the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of the period of reflection and consideration by reference to which the separation order was made; or
(ii) if earlier, on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (3A)(a) applied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 5

MARITAL BREAKDOWN

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 4, leave out from 'statement' to 'has' in line 9.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'more than one year' and insert
`one year ("the specified period")'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 105, in page 3, line 27, after 'year' insert
`(or such further period as shall, having regard to the presumption that the divorce process should ordinarily be concluded within a total period of two and a half years, appear to the court in all the circumstances to be just)'.
Government amendments Nos. 26 to 28, 48 to 51 and 53.

Mr. Streeter: I cannot move the amendments formally because it is important to explain their purpose.
Under the Bill as drafted, parties are able to suspend the passing of the period for reflection and consideration by notifying the court that they wish to attempt reconciliation. The amendments provide that the passing of the lapse period following the period for reflection and consideration can also be suspended for the same reason. They will therefore encourage attempts at reconciliation right up until the time of an application for a divorce order.
On amendment No. 105, the statement does not simply lapse at the end of the period for reflection and consideration so as to give extra time to parties for whom the period for reflection and consideration may not have proved long enough to reach decisions about future arrangements, so that they do not have to recommence the divorce process. It is important, however, that there is a set time at which the statement lapses. Allowing proceedings to drag on, with all the inevitable uncertainty, can be very harmful to children, as well as potentially to the parties.
It is also important that people are aware that there is only finite time available to them for making their arrangements. Allowing people to believe that they can apply for an extension to the lapse period if they prevaricate may encourage some people to do just that. That may be the case particularly where negotiations are acrimonious, in the sense that it may be used as a bargaining chip.
Amendment No. 105 would allow the court to extend the lapse period where it appears to the court that to do so would be just in all the circumstances. Under the terms of the amendment, the court would be expected to have regard to the presumption that the divorce process should ordinarily be concluded within two and a half years. It seems to be an attempt to provide parties who have not

applied for an extension to the period for reflection and consideration with the same overall time limit for the divorce process as those who are granted an extension to the period.
The six-month extension to the period for reflection and consideration has a specific purpose. It is intended to provide additional time for parties to reconsider the step that they are taking to divorce where one party does not consent, or where they have children under 16. It is not simply an extra six months to enable parties to reach decisions on their future arrangements and it should not therefore be equated with adding on extra time to the lapse period.
The Government intend to make the following provision under rules of court: where the lapse period is likely to apply and ancillary relief proceedings are still pending, parties will make an application for a divorce or separation order. The court will have power to adjourn the application. It is intended that rules of court will provide the circumstances when the court will adjourn the application. It is intended that those circumstances will be where ancillary relief proceedings have not been concluded for reasons that are beyond the control of the applicant or the other party.
Government amendment No. 48 simply rectifies an omission in the Bill as drafted. Under clause 10(4), after cancellation of an order preventing divorce, a divorce order can be made only if a fresh application is made under clause 3. There is, however, the possibility of an application for a divorce order being made under clause 4(3)—hence the need for the amendment.

Mr. Llwyd: I do not propose to speak to amendment No. 105 as it was discussed at length in Committee. The hour is late and there is much work to get through, so I shall not address the issue at this point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 3, line 30, after `the' insert 'specified'.

No. 27, in page 3, line 30, at end insert—

'(4A) Subsection (4B) applies if, before the end of the specified period, the parties jointly give notice to the court that they are attempting reconciliation but require additional time.

(4B) The specified period—

(a) stops running on the day on which the notice is received by the court; but
(b) resumes running on the day on which either of the parties gives notice to the court that the attempted reconciliation has been unsuccessful.

(4C) If the specified period is interrupted by a continuous period of more than 18 months, any application by either of the parties for a divorce order or for a separation order must be by reference to a new statement received by the court at any time after the end of the 18 months.'.

No. 28, in page 3, leave out line 32 and insert 'the specified period'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 7

PERIOD FOR REFLECTION AND CONSIDERATION

Sir Jim Lester: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'one year' and insert 'nine months'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (11).
Government amendments Nos. 30 to 35.
Amendment No. 8, in page 5 line 34, at end insert—
`(14) The Lord Chancellor may make rules prescribing the circumstances in which the court may order the abridgement of the period for reflection and consideration.'.

Sir Jim Lester: I am delighted to move the amendment. It is perhaps the shortest amendment on the amendment paper, but that does not reflect its importance. It is the only way in which we can keep faith with all those who have worked to produce the Bill over 10 years, with all the consultation and procedures, and with the way in which hon. Members voted during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
The amendment deals with the period of reflection and consideration, which was thoroughly debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. I speak against the background to the drafting of the legislation, over a long time, of 75 per cent. of divorces going through in seven months, of 20 per cent. going through by agreement within two years and of 5 per cent. going through within five years.
My experience is that, when confronted with a variety of choices on a free vote, hon. Members make a clear and understandable decision. When the House voted on the two-year period, it decisively rejected it. I was a Teller for the other two votes, and as such was able to see how hon. Members voted in the Lobby. In expressing their feelings that there should be a difference between marriages where there is agreement on ending it and those where one of the parties disagrees, hon. Members voted for an additional six months. Despite that, the measure was carried by only four votes. None the less, it was a free vote and those who sought to make more of it, particularly the newspapers, did the House a great disservice. A free vote is a free vote: there is no such thing as a Conservative vote, a Labour vote or a Cabinet Ministers' vote. In a free vote, there is only one vote—that of the individual casting it. The earlier debate was genuine and the House decided on that differentiation.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and other Committee members made the argument, which I accept, that if one is to try to save a marriage, the right time is the beginning of the process, not the end. My hon. Friend succeeded in persuading the Committee that after the information session, three months should be allowed—some people call it a cooling-off or waiting period—for the couple to absorb the information that they have been given and to make arrangements for counselling, with a view to reconciliation. Again, the Government have introduced a forward-looking new clause on the value of counselling. The emphasis was wholly changed by offering an early opportunity to couples who could achieve reconciliation.
All that happened in the knowledge that most marriages do not suddenly come to an end, but instead die over a considerable period. The act of seeking information to obtain a divorce is not an instant decision. People do not wake up in the morning and say, "Good gracious me. I think I will go and get divorced." In the majority of cases,

that action comes at the end of a protracted and difficult time. We took the view that if there was the hope of saving any marriages through reconciliation, it was worth taking the chance.
The effect of the three-month extension, which was not known to hon. Members in Committee on the Floor of the House, was to extend the 12-month period agreed by the House to 15 months and the 18-month allowance to 22 months. National Family Mediation made it clear that, after the information meeting, couples will have three months to consider. After two weeks, the other party will be notified—then follows the statement and the period for reflection and consideration, which is currently 12 months and 18 months. Securing the divorce order takes one month, which makes 22 and a half months. The NFM pointed out that such delay will do nothing to benefit mediation or reconciliation. In many cases, it could make matters infinitely more difficult because it appears to be a case of marking time.

Mr. Tipping: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on the effect of a 22-month delay, which in many cases cannot be good for the welfare of the children involved or helpful in planning for their future.

Sir Jim Lester: I accept that point, which was made by many organisations that deal with children and divorce. I make no bones about being opposed to the original extension. I was happy with 12 months, and was a Teller in the Division to try to maintain that period. However, I am also a democrat and totally accept the will of the House. It voted for 12 months and 18 months. I only emphasise that the House did not know at that stage that it was intended to extend the period, with all the consequential problems to which reference has been made.
My amendment will maintain the original overall period that the House found acceptable when the matter was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House. More important, the original time allowed continues to receive the support of many hon. Members who opposed the extension.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend is really saying that we should not bother with a Committee stage because we will just shove the whole lot back afterwards.

Sir Jim Lester: I regard this legislation as critically important. I do not know how many times my hon. Friend has taken part in a debate on the Floor of the House involving a free vote on particular information. When a Bill is altered in Committee, it is surely right to think again.
The original documents, Green Papers and endless consultations that contributed to the Bill took 10 years. They all supported the 12-month period, but most of the people involved have accepted the will of the House to provide an extension to 18 months in certain cases. If my amendment is not accepted, the two-year period that the House emphatically refused to endorse will get in through the back door. We must keep faith with court welfare officers, mediators, conciliators and the legal profession, who know much more about the effect of time spent on processing divorces than many hon. Members.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role in Committee, mentioned a


variety of experts. Does my hon. Friend think that those experts have, over the past generation, given the House wise advice on divorce law trends and the steady liberalisation that has occurred over the past 30 years?

Sir Jim Lester: Those experts, who are deeply concerned about existing divorce law, have fully participated in the discussions augmented by the Government to secure approval for the Bill. The experts accepted the Lord Chancellor's original proposal that 12 months was adequate but, following the vote on the Floor of the House, they accepted the six-month extension. They did not have a chance to be consulted or to consider the extension to 15 and to 22 and a half months.
I understand that my amendment is the subject of a free vote for Conservative Members. The guide to this evening's voting produced by the Whips Office makes it clear that there is a free vote, but it refers to an amendment that
seeks to reduce the 18/12-month period to 15/9 months by incorporating the three-month waiting period.
Any hon. Member who has not followed the Bill or served on the Committee might not appreciate that those are three extra months added in Committee. It is neither my intention nor that of the amendment to reduce the original period for reconciliation for which the House voted. My intention is to maintain that period and to keep faith with the House in the way that it voted when it had all the information available.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I support the amendment, but shall try to speak only briefly because I am conscious that we still have much work to do tonight. I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester—[Interruption.]

Sir Jim Lester: My name is Lester, but I come from Nottingham.

Ms Hodge: I apologise.
During the passage of the Bill, we improved it by introducing conciliation as a final attempt to save marriages. There is broad consensus on that. The other aspects that introduce mediation are welcome, but one unintended consequence of the new move to have conciliation is that we have prolonged the period during which people would have to be together to take the process of divorce through. One of the consequences is that there will be more litigation. The period is too long and runs counter to the purpose of the original legislation: to reduce litigation in those difficult circumstances and to use mechanisms such as mediation and conciliation.
I respect the democratic will of the House to go for 18 months, but one of the reasons why I support the amendment is that, if we leave the Bill with the additional, unintended three months—with 21 months between a decision to go for divorce and the final divorce—it will be worse for children and for families. The Bill's whole purpose is to improve matters for children and families during the difficult circumstances when a partnership breaks up. Some people will view the Bill as preserving marriage at any price and the cost will be too high for both the children and the family.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the Children Act 1989. Section 1(2) says something that is of importance in our deliberations tonight on this free vote:

In any proceedings in which any question with respect to the upbringing of a child arises, the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child.
We accepted that during the passage of the Act, which, again, had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important to act swiftly in determining children's future, yet, if we do not accept the amendment, we shall delay outcomes for children.
Twenty-one months is a lifetime for a child. Hon. Members' own children see the six weeks of a summer holiday and the year from one birthday to the next as a very long time. We are saying to children that we wish to add another three months to the disturbance and horrors that they go through when their parents' marriage is breaking down.

9 pm

Dame Jill Knight: It is only fair and right to say that there is much disagreement with that view from people who were, as I was, a child of parents who divorced. It was my dearest hope that my parents would not divorce. Every week that they stayed together, I was happy that we were still together and still a family. From my bitter experience, it was not the case that I wanted the whole thing over then and there, perhaps not seeing my father, or whatever arrangements might have been made. It is not automatically the case that all children want the marriage to end.

Ms Hodge: With the greatest respect, let me say that the hon. Lady is misunderstanding me. Of course every child wants his parents to remain together, but if the marriage has broken down and divorce will ensue, on the whole, for most children—although perhaps not for the hon. Lady at that time—it is better that the marriage be brought more swiftly to an end so that they can deal with certainty. In the longer run, dealing with the uncertainty of not knowing whether parents will stay together can be more traumatic and more damaging for children than having to deal with the certainty of knowing, sadly, that the marriage has broken down. Of course it is true that a happy household, with two parents living happily together, is what we all want for all our children. Sadly, that is not always what children have.
Will the hon. Lady reflect that, when their parents split up, many children feel enormous guilt? They feel in some way that they are responsible, although of course they are not. We should not allow that feeling to ensue for a longer period. An additional three months in a child's life is a long period. It would do lasting damage to many children. The first reason why I support the amendment is that I genuinely believe that, where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is in children's interests that there is certainty and that children then learn to live with the certainty of their parents splitting up.
Tonight, we have talked a lot about the victims of domestic violence. I am delighted that the Government have accepted our amendments to protect women who have been subject to domestic violence, but such violence is an issue here as well. Many women who go to a refuge will not pursue an injunction to prevent their husbands from re-entering their lives or abusing them again, but will start pursuing the route to divorce. They should not have to wait 21 months to achieve the certainty of divorce. It is a tough decision for a woman to make when she


is feeling weak, trampled upon and vulnerable. To make women wait the additional three months is a disbenefit for those vulnerable women who are victims of domestic violence.
When the men who are the perpetrators of violence in the marriage suddenly realise that their wives will go for a divorce and that, this time, a bunch of flowers will not resolve the issue, they frequently become even more violent and perpetrate greater abuse—

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I do not dispute the fact that men are violent in marriage—30 years of professional practice has taught me that—but my hon. Friend should accept that there is growing evidence that a number of women are violent in marriage. The problem is that if the couple are kept together for too long, the violence is transmitted to the children.

Ms Hodge: I accept that; indeed, I made that clear earlier when my hon. Friend was not present. Some women are violent towards their husbands, but the reality is that nine out of 10 incidents of domestic violence involve men abusing their wives. Every week two women are murdered by their husbands. One in four murders in Britain is committed by a man against a woman. The enormity of the problem is clear.

Mr. Brazier: I really cannot let that remark go unchallenged. The highest incidence of domestic violence is against children and, as study after study has shown, the most common is violence by the new male partner of the natural mother.

Ms Hodge: As we said in Committee, the issue of child abuse is extremely grave. Indeed, the House discussed it earlier this afternoon. However, it does not help the problem of child abuse to lock women into relationships where they are abused by their husbands and their children witness that and, quite possibly, are being abused themselves. Men who abuse their wives are equally likely to abuse their children. On the ground of domestic violence, it is imperative that we support the amendment to try to contain, in the way originally intended, the length of time it takes a wife who has been subjected to domestic violence to achieve a divorce.
I want to give three or four other examples to show why extending the waiting period by three months could be detrimental to our original intent. A couple may have been living apart for a long time but have not pursued divorce for whatever reason. One of the partners then becomes terminally ill and wishes to make a will and settle his or her property in a way that ensures that it does not go to the estranged husband or wife. If we yet again extend the time that it takes to achieve a divorce, we shall make it difficult for people in their final days in this world to ensure that their wills suit their intent.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Those are interesting arguments, but they are arguments for further and further abridgment. Where would my hon. Friend stop?

Ms Hodge: I have to admit that I would not have amended the Bill in the first place. Like others who have

spoken, I accept the democratic will that there should be an 18-month period between starting divorce proceedings and achieving divorce. I am supporting this amendment to ensure that that period is not extended to 21 months, adding a further three months to the period from when people first want a divorce to when they can finally obtain one.
I shall give one final instance of when things could go wrong. Many people who divorce go on to form successful second marriages—second marriages are not always unsuccessful relationships—and those couples may have more children. If they must wait 21 months to secure a divorce, we may unwittingly end up with couples having one or two illegitimate children who are born during the process of securing a divorce.
Once a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it is in no one's interests—it is certainly not in children's interests—to prolong the waiting period, simply to hang on to the marriage. I support this amendment because it is in the interests of children and families to do so. In considering the Bill, I put their interests above all others. I hope that other hon. Members will do the same.

Mr. Michael Alison: I do not often find that my mental processes depart very significantly from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), but today I feel that he has slightly misinterpreted the significance of what the Standing Committee did in introducing this special, additional three-month period.
I take my position from the advice given to us in the very helpful letter from the former Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who has now gone to the Welsh Office. In his letter of 22 May, he made it very plain:
Acceptance of these amendments"—
that was the three-month extension, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred in his amendment—
was a response to the general concern which has been voiced on all sides of the House about allowing time for parties to contemplate the possibility of reconciliation before the divorce process itself is started and encouraging the use of marriage support services as a means of preventing irretrievable marriage breakdown.
In other words, the period added on is not to be thought of as an extension of the divorce proceedings, because it is not. It is a preliminary, to see whether divorce proceedings should be started at all.
To use an analogy from the world of racing, it is not as if we were turning an 18-furlong race into a 21-furlong race. On the contrary, it is a matter of deciding whether a horse that is due to run in the 18-furlong race should be entered for the race at all, or whether it should scratch before it comes under starter's orders.
Essentially, we are introducing this period of marriage guidance counselling to prevent the horse from coming under starter's orders. That is where the best interests of children—who are so much the concern of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), and whose concern for children we so much appreciated in her speech—are served. The horse bearing the child may be scratched before the race begins, and that is exactly what we are trying to secure.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Alison: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to interventions; I do not want to hold up the House for long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe is misinterpreting the significance of the three-month period. The three months are not an extension of divorce proceedings, but an attempt—through the use of professional counsellors, on a one-to-one basis—to examine with a couple, singly or together, whether they really want to go forward with the proceedings. It is not a part of the mediation process, which is a part of the divorce proceedings; it is to discover whether proceedings should be started at all.
I very much hope that the distinction will be borne in mind and that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that we are not trying to slip in an extension to the divorce proceedings. We are trying to ascertain whether it might be possible to scratch some of the parties running in this horrific race.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I take a different view from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and support my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), who proposed that the reflection period should not be added on to the 12 or 18 months. I have to tell the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) that this does not apply only to marriages where children are involved—it applies whether or not there are children involved. I agree with Lord Habgood that we should not have different laws for marriage, depending on whether or not children are involved. We should ensure that children's interests are fully taken into account before parents can separate and be free to marry again.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 103. In Committee of the whole House, we debated whether there should be an extension of six or 12 months on top of the 12 months set out in the Bill by the Lord Chancellor. In reviewing the debates on what is now subsection (11) of clause 7, I found very few references to children. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said:
Children want their parents to stay together. We would wholly reject any amendment that would reduce the waiting time to less than 12 months."—[Official Report, 24 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 505.]
There was no significant debate on whether what is now subsection (11), in association with subsection (13), has it right.
Reference has been made to the Children Act 1989. It is worth recalling the success of that Act, which has contributed to a dramatic reduction in the number of children taken into care. Those of us who believe that children should be with their parents wherever possible will regard that fact as a significant success, and one that shows that it ought to be possible by law to remove incentives for families to break up unnecessarily. People who criticise the Act cannot have studied its impact. One of the principles of the 1989 Act is that uncertainty should not remain in children's lives. I agree.
Clause 7(13) states:
If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.
There are two sets of circumstances in which subsection (13) comes into play. The first, which I think was the main point that we considered in Committee of

the whole House, is when one of the parties involved in an application for a divorce applies to the court within the prescribed period for time for further reflection. That was the House's decision, and I think that we should accept it. When it goes back to another place, I think that it should also be accepted there. It is a way of getting agreement that most of us would go for.
The second is where the children come in. Amendment No. 103 would omit subsection (11), which states:
Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (13) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received via the court.
Subsection (12) states:
Subsection (13) does not apply if'—
I leave out paragraph (a) as it is not relevant to my argument—
(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of the divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.
I think that we should reverse that, and say that there should be a six-month extension if the court is satisfied that it would be beneficial to the welfare of a child.
That argument did not take place in Committee of the whole House, but I do not think that, after 9 pm, after a fairly full day on Report, it is right to think that, in two or three minutes, probably under pressure from the business managers even though there might be a free vote, we can rehearse all the arguments.
I simply ask that we put this idea to the other place when it considers the amendment we have made and ask whether it might reverse the impact of subsection (12)(b) combined with subsection (11) and make it an option for either party to a marriage to apply for the extra six months if it would be beneficial for any child involved. We should not assume that, whatever the circumstances, it would be in the child's interests to add on six months.

Mr. Llwyd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that part of the Bill does not allow adequate consideration for the rights and welfare of children. Let me say for the record that I agree with him entirely.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those who have not read our Committee proceedings, I recommend the contributions by the hon. Gentleman, who brought his expertise to the way in which the law works in the interests of children.
We can improve on the changes that were made by the House. Although I did not support the addition of six months, I am perfectly willing to accept it, as I have no strong views on the matter. However, we should not automatically assume that, because of the presence of a child under 16, an extra six months on the time in which a divorce can be granted would necessarily be in the interests of that child.
If the House of Lords takes the opportunity to decide whether that presumption should be reversed, when the Bill returns to the House, we should consider that decision with open minds and not look on it as one of the battles


over whether divorce law should be reformed. We should put the interests of the child first and make the change accordingly.

Mrs. Maddock: I entirely agree with the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Broadstone in moving the amendment.

Sir Jim Lester: Broxtowe.

Mrs. Maddock: I should have stuck to Nottingham, as I probably would have been right.
Joking apart, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) is absolutely right. Hon. Members are concerned about what will happen to children. Whatever we support in the Bill, we all agree that the welfare of children and families is paramount. However, we disagree as to the best way of legislating with that in mind.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe was absolutely right to say that it is wrong to draw out divorce proceedings. I take a different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). My parents divorced, and I could not wait to get away from the endless arguments. It depends on the family how quickly the children may want their parents' marriage to end.
The evidence from a wide range of bodies, and all the research carried out when the Bill originally went to the House of Lords, shows that, on balance, it is better for children if the process is not drawn out. That applies particularly to young children, as 22 months is a long time in the life of a one-year-old.
I made the same point when we discussed the Housing Bill. We are bad at tying up all the different legislation that applies to children. As two hon. Members have already pointed out, what we are doing tonight may not be consistent with the Children Act. The same applies to other legislation. I support the amendment. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to vote on it again. It is in the interests of children and of co-ordinating our legislation.

Mr. Bill Michie: I shall be brief, as we debated the matter at considerable length in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) likened the measure to a horse race, and said that we should find out whether the horse is fit enough before the race starts. Frankly, that is not a good analogy.
The problem was raised in Committee more than once. Most couples who divorce do not make a sudden decision after a Saturday night tiff. They have often spent a long time trying to resolve their problems before they find out that it is impossible. When they reach the stage of conciliation and decide to separate for the benefit of the children and for their own peace of mind, legislation should assist that process. It should not encourage them to divorce, but should provide the facilities—through conciliation or whatever—to do so in the shortest possible time. I am absolutely convinced from my own experience—never mind that of my family and my constituents—that, the longer the process continues, the worse it is for the children.
I echo the point that has just been made. In a child's life, 21 months is a long time. The process is agony, and does not help the child at all. I have had discussions with the Solicitors Family Law Association in Sheffield, which is absolutely certain that, despite the fact that an 18-month period has been accepted, a 12-month period would be right. Any extra time would not solve any problems but would place greater burdens and pressures, especially on children.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the criminal courts, for example, the delay of the trial of a 13 or 14-year-old by 21 months would almost certainly be ruled an abuse of process? The criminal courts recognise that speed is essential in cases involving children.

Mr. Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. He knows the law a darned sight better than I do. I am not a lawyer, and therefore speak with much more freedom, if not emotion, on the subject.
I know that the Sheffield Solicitors Family Law Association works very hard to try to ensure that couples and their children genuinely go through a process of conciliation and thoroughly understand the implications involved. I respect it for that. It would find its task more and more difficult if the period was extended. It says:
The 12 month period originally proposed struck the right balance between supporting the institution of marriage, giving couples time to consider their decision to divorce, and allowing them to plan their future lives.
21 months is too long a period for the couple and their children to be left in limbo. The effect of the extended period would be that people would issue proceedings as early as possible to start the clock ticking, thereby threatening any prospects of reconciliation.
I totally agree with the logic of that argument. I hope that the amendment will be supported.

Mr. Rowe: For once in my life, I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby racecourse (Mr. Alison). The whole purpose of the change in Committee was to ensure that the first three months of the process after the information session was an opportunity for the couple to consider, in the light of the information that they had received, whether they were taking a step that they really wanted to take. If that process was effective, there is no doubt whatever that, over the following six to nine months, progress would be made, and, by the end of the nine months, they would decide that they did not want to go ahead with their proceedings.
If progress had not been made, and the situation was either static or deteriorating, the idea of lengthening the period still further seems absolutely fatal to the chances of further amicable relations after a divorce, and would be absolutely horrendous for the children. While the process is dynamic, there is everything to be said for giving every form of encouragement and support. Once the dynamism has gone, the idea of lengthening the process purely in order to have it on the statute book for some almost sadistic reason seems misguided.

Mr. Bermingham: I do not intend to speak for long, since I have already made most of the points that I want to make. I declare an interest as a practising lawyer, although rarely in the matrimonial field these days. From


experience, it seems that, the longer the warring parties are kept together, the greater the problems for children. Indeed, from countless children's reports before juvenile courts and so on, it is apparent that, where children have, as it were, been the subject of a battleground, their period of intense distress, upset and anxiety has been during that battle.
I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. I voted for the 12-month period, but we were beaten on that. I hope that those in another place will bring some common sense to bear. If we were to make the children suffer for any prolonged period, we would not be serving their interests.
The Bill should have been about children. Regrettably, it is not. It is very badly drafted; it is an appalling mess. If it proceeds any further, I hope that those in another place can do something to improve it, because it needs much improvement. Surely the child's interest is first, and surely the child's disturbed period should be kept to a minimum. I therefore urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) correctly outlined what the House decided on the last occasion: that the period for waiting and reflection should normally be 18 months, unless there is consent and there are no children. We in no way seek to extend that period. The time for waiting and reflection will still be 18 months after the statement of marital breakdown.
However, after the House made that decision, a series of amendments were tabled in Committee, not least by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and me. He thought that there should be encouragement to marriage counselling at the information meeting, and a period of at least 28 days after that encouragement before a statement should be filed. I took the view that there should be a longer period of three months. The Government accepted the proposed three-month period, but that period runs after the information meeting and before the statement of marital breakdown.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, information meetings will often result in divorce not being proceeded with. They may be held many months before divorce proceedings are taken. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), stated:
It has been suggested in some quarters—and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Brent, South—that the introduction of a three-month cooling-off period would necessarily lengthen the process to 21 months. However, parties engaged in the process of divorce tend to have taken their first legal advice 12 months or so before initiating the process, so there is no direct correlation between the time at which they first seek advice and the time at which it is decided to start the process of divorce."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 1996: c. 156.]
9.30 pm
The problem with the amendment is that it will shorten the times for waiting and reflection from 18 months and 12 months, as they are at present, to 15 months and nine months. It could have a bad effect in forcing couples to tie up their affairs more quickly than they would otherwise want.
Lord Ackner, who is a leading practitioner in family matters, has explained that, in his experience, if there are contested proceedings on ancillary matters, it can take up

to 18 months to sort them out. The amendment could put undue pressure on the parties. On those grounds, and because we accept the verdict of the House that the time for waiting and reflection should be 18 months—no more and no less—I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Boateng: We visited this issue at some length in Committee with a view to ensuring that there was a dedicated space during which it was possible for the parties to concentrate on reconciliation. We have considerably improved the Bill in that respect. We have created the opportunity, for those parties who seek it, to find pathways from the information session to one-on-one counselling, with the specific objective of saving marriages that can be saved. I am satisfied that, in so doing, we have fulfilled our responsibility, which was shared by all hon. Members on Second Reading, to strengthen the Bill on reconciliation for saving marriages that can be saved.
We took another decision on the Floor of the House on the length of the period for reflection and consideration. The House had the options of 12, 18 and 24 months. Like the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), I took the view that 12 months was right. The majority of Labour Members, on a free vote, took a similar view. However, the House came to a different view and chose 18 months. I respect that. This is not the time to revisit the matter or to seek to go behind that decision. However, we must reflect on the implications of the three months that have been added specifically for the reconciliation exercise that we have created.
I take the view, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) knows it, that three months is too long. I was concerned about the 28-day option in the light of the House's decision to go for 18 months. I would have preferred 12 months and then 28 days, or two months for the specific reconciliation period. However, the House took a particular view, and it would be quite wrong for us to create, in effect, a period of 21 months on the basis that that somehow underwrote our commitment to marriage.
It would be wrong to think that, by creating an additional hurdle, albeit a time hurdle, we would be bolstering marriage. We would not be doing that, because the reality of human relations and the process as we know it, whether we are lawyers who practise in the field, have been through it ourselves or have friends who have, is that there is only a narrow window of opportunity by which to save a marriage, and that it occurs at the very beginning.
That is why we emphasise this matter, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle for his role in that. At that stage there is a chance to save the marriage, but beyond that time, the sooner it is brought to an end, consistent with the need to put in place proper, just arrangements for children and finances, the better. Extending that period, which in effect we would be doing if the amendment were passed, does not serve any purpose at all.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxtowe for moving the amendment. It is a free vote, and hon. Members will do as their conscience dictates. I shall vote for the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the


Member for Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester) on moving the amendment. I agree with its logic. It will be decided on a free vote, but it was important for my hon. Friend and for the hon. Members for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) to remind the House of the substance of the debate when this matter was discussed in Committee of the whole House.
I did not serve on the Standing Committee, but I can see the logic of it adding a specific cooling-off period of three months between the information meeting and the act of filing the statement for divorce. But surely the intention was that that should be a concurrent and not a consecutive period.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that I understand from the then Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), that there was no intention that this should be a consecutive period. If there was a misunderstanding, I apologise on behalf of the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor for his sterling work in Standing Committee.

Mr. Leigh: I cannot let this pass. If it was not the intention of the Minister, why on earth did he not make that clear at the time? I have read from the Official Report the passage in which the Minister supported my amendment and slapped down the arguments of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). That passage is in column 156 of Hansard, Standing Committee E. The Minister had a chance to reject my amendment, but he accepted it.
Perhaps the Government changed their mind. I know not why, but they are entitled to do that or to try to get the Bill through Parliament, which is another matter. They should at least accept that, in Standing Committee, they accepted my amendment in its entirety.

Mr. Freeman: A technical explanation may be that the Committee of the whole House debated clause 7 here and not in Standing Committee. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who intervened on that subject during this brief debate, that we could not make the consequential amendment, for technical reasons, because the Committee was not empowered to do so. Only the whole House on Report can address the issue.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) for quoting the column reference of the Standing Committee debate. It is made absolutely plain that the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said that we would have to revisit the question of whether the period is 12, 18 or 24 months, or whether it is 15 months for reflection and consideration. It was flagged up in Committee by the hon. Gentleman that we would be coming back to the issue on Report. He said:
I look forward enormously to the debate on Report."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 1996; c. 156.]

It is open to the House on Report to decide whether it is matter of adding in the period for reflection, but not necessarily adding it on.

Mr. Freeman: It is important that the House reaches a conclusion on the merits of the case.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend has been very kind, but he is telling us something that I am finding it difficult to be convinced by. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), the previous Parliamentary Secretary, wrote to all colleagues on 22 May, sating that amendments were accepted in Committee to provide that a statement of marital breakdown could not be made until at least three months had passed from the time when the party making the statement had attended the information meeting. By no means can that be construed as concurrent to the beginning of the divorce proceedings.
My hon. Friend went on to state that acceptance of the amendments would allow time for parties to contemplate the possibility of reconciliation before the divorce process itself started. I do not see how one can have the doctrine of concurrency when so clearly defined is the proposition that the process of reconciliation should be consecutive.

Mr. Freeman: I will not be able to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends who oppose the amendment. It is important that the House addresses the issue on its merits, which are clear, in my judgment. The House considered carefully whether there should be a total period of 12 months for reflection and consideration, with an additional cooling-off period of three months between the information meeting and the filing of a statement of marital breakdown, during which time guidance, reconciliation and mediation might become available.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe would allow a further nine months for reflection and consideration. This is a free vote, and I shall personally support the amendment.
I briefly wish to refer to amendment No. 103. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to press the matter to a vote, but it is important briefly to address his argument.
My hon. Friend argues that the House did not have the opportunity of separating the two issues in the debate—the automatic extension of six months if one party objected, and the separate test if there were children under the age of 16. He said that he wanted to remove the second test, leaving only the automatic extension of six months if either party objected. I am bound to say that the House did have an opportunity to consider the issue, and voted for the amendment—on a free vote—by 200 to 196. The amendment was inserted into the Bill, and my hon. Friend is now seeking to amend it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) spoke for many when she said that the period of 18 months where children are involved is important. Her arguments were that many children want parents to stay together, but they want the parents to understand their obligations. Parents should be asked to make that extra effort. If I may encapsulate her arguments, they were that many children want parents to stay together, that children want parents to understand the obligations that they have taken on, and that parents should be asked to make that extra effort.
I appreciate that there are arguments on the other side. I have cited the support of the marriage and children's organisations for the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, and we have already passed new clause 12, which provides alleviation in certain circumstances—a new clause to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke.
In all the circumstances, although it is a free vote, I take the liberty of saying that, if that amendment is pressed, I will not support it.

Sir Jim Lester: I need to say two things. First, to protect my hon. Friend the then Minister regarding what happened in Committee, I raised this question with him immediately, and he made it clear in his speech replying to the debate that it would be perfectly acceptable to return to this matter on Report. Any idea that he was committed to this being an addition rather than a part is wrong, and obviously it is up to him, on a free vote, to express what he feels.
Secondly, I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) misunderstands. I supported the changes proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) because I understood that it was important to have the three months at the beginning; but he may underestimate the purpose of the Bill, which has a period for reflection and consideration that was never available before. Throughout the period of the proceedings, people are able to reflect and consider. Help is available, and they can withdraw their divorce proceedings at any time during the entire period.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 154.

Division No. 146]
[9.46 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Butler, Peter


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Caborn, Richard


Alexander, Richard
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cann, Jamie


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Barron, Kevin
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Battle, John
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Andrew F
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Berry, Roger
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Body, Sir Richard
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Boswell, Tim
Clelland, David


Bradley, Keith
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Brandreth, Gyles
Coe, Sebastian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Coffey, Ann


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cohen, Harry


Browning, Mrs Angela
Connarty, Michael


Burden, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John





Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Couchman, James
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cox, Tom
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Illsley, Eric


Denham, John
Ingram, Adam


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dowd, Jim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jamieson, David


Dykes, Hugh
Janner, Greville


Eastham, Ken
Jenkin, Bernard


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Etherington, Bill
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Fabricant, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Fatchett, Derek
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Fishburn, Dudley
Jowell, Tessa


Fisher, Mark
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Flynn, Paul
Keen, Alan


Forman, Nigel
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Forth, Eric
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foulkes, George
Kirkwood, Archy


Fraser, John
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Fyfe, Maria
Knox, Sir David


Galbraith, Sam
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Galloway, George
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Gapes, Mike
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Lewis, Terry


Garrett, John
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gillan, Cheryl
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Godsiff, Roger
Loyden, Eddie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Luff, Peter


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gordon, Mildred
McAllion, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McCartney, Ian


Graham, Thomas
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacKay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKelvey, William


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hain, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Hampson, Dr Keith
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Madden, Max


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maddock, Diana


Harvey, Nick
Mahon, Alice


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mandelson, Peter


Hawkins, Nick
Marek, Dr John


Hayes, Jerry
Marland, Paul


Heald, Oliver
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hendry, Charles
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Meale, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hodge, Margaret
Michael, Alun


Hoey, Kate
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Milburn, Alan






Miller, Andrew
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri
Soley, Clive


Morley, Elliot
Speed, Sir Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Moss, Malcolm
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spring, Richard


Mudie, George
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Murphy, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Stevenson, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stott, Roger


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Norris, Steve
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Streeter, Gary


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Pickthall, Colin
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pike, Peter L
Thurnham, Peter


Pope, Greg
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Trickett, Jon


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Purchase, Ken
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wells, Bowen


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Raynsford, Nick
Whitney, Ray


Rendel, David
Wicks, Malcolm


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Worthington, Tony


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Short, Clare



Sims, Sir Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Peter Bottomley and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)





NOES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arbuthnot, James
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dafis, Cynog


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dixon, Don


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bright, Sir Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)





Evennett, David
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fry, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Pendry, Tom


Gallie, Phil
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gardiner, Sir George
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Gill, Christopher
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorst, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Robathan, Andrew


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hardy, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Horam, John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Jessel, Toby
Spink, Dr Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stephen, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stewart, Allan


Knapman, Roger
Sumberg, David


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sweeney, Walter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Leigh, Edward
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lidington, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lord, Michael
Tredinnick, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Twinn, Dr Ian


Macdonald, Calum
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walden, George


McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ward, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Merchant, Piers
Watts, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Wilkinson, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Willetts, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Wilshire, David


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Nelson, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Neubert, Sir Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Michael Alison and Mr. David Alton.


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Family Law Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Bates.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 5, line 2, leave out `give joint' and insert 'jointly give'.

No. 30, in page 5, line 22, leave out

`any child of the family'

and insert

`a child of the family who is'.

No. 31, in page 5, line 23, leave out

`statement is received by the court'

and insert 'application is made'.

No. 32, in page 5, line 27, leave out from 'family' to `or' in line 28.

No. 33, in page 5, line 28, leave out `; or' and insert

`made against the other party; or'.

No. 34, in page 5, line 33, leave out 'without invalidating the' and insert

'—

(a) only in relation to the application for a divorce order in respect of which the application under subsection (10) was made; and
(b) without invalidating that'.

No. 35, in page 5, line 34, at end insert—

'(14) A period for reflection and consideration which is extended under subsection (13) and which has not otherwise come to an end, comes to an end on there ceasing to be any children of the family to whom subsection (11) applied.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 8

ATTENDANCE AT INFORMATION MEETINGS

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 6, line 6, leave out
`the party or parties attending with relevant information'
and insert
`, in accordance with prescribed provisions, relevant information to the party or parties attending'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 41 to 44.

Mr. Streeter: Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 were tabled in response to hon. Members' concerns. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), agreed in Committee that he would further consider the inclusion of references to support for victims of domestic violence, to the availability of legal representation and to the provisions of the legal aid scheme in the list of matters on which information would be provided at information meetings held under clause 8.
It has always been the Government's intention that information about legal aid, legal services and protection from violence should be made available at information meetings, but concern was expressed that the list in primary legislation should not become over-detailed.
In proposing the amendments, however, the Government are seeking to address the strong concern felt by Opposition Members, by many Conservative Members and by people with experience in the field, who believe that the need to provide information about support for domestic violence and about the availability and workings of the legal aid scheme should be emphasised on the face of the Bill.
I have met representatives of the Women's Aid Federation, and I understand that they strongly support an amendment to provide information on what protection is available against violence and on how to obtain support and assistance. I believe that the amendments will improve the provisions of clause 8.
As has been emphasised on many occasions, the Government intend to pilot the workings of the information meetings. The list in primary legislation of the information that must be provided is not exhaustive and the Lord Chancellor has the power to add other provisions in regulations. It will be necessary to establish through the pilot exactly what information should be made available, the nature of its presentation, the content of any written information that should be given to parties and the necessary provisions to ensure that information giving is of the highest standard.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 41 ensure that the Lord Chancellor can set and maintain standards in relation to the quality of information and information giving. The information meeting is an important introduction to the divorce process. It may provide the assistance that couples need to re-evaluate their relationship and to take steps to save their marriage. Consequently, it is vital that the information meetings and information givers meet an approved standard.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: This is my first opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench. In Committee, he served with great distinction as a member of the Whips Office, so he will recall that I proposed a number of amendments relating to information meetings. We are pleased that the Government, at this extremely late stage, have come round to our way of thinking and are fleshing out the purpose of information meetings.
Such meetings are a radical departure in family law and must be treated carefully. As much information as possible about the pilot projects should be given to the House so that it can make a proper evaluation, because it is charged with the heavy duty of passing the legislation. Couples will often be required to attend information meetings when they are in difficult situations, so they may find the experience traumatic. In Committee, we proposed that meetings should be held in a location compatible with the dignity of marriage. Although such a provision is not part of the Government amendments, I hope that the Minister will reflect the spirit of my comments and make sure that pilot project meetings take place in suitable surroundings.
Understanding is also important, which means, in a multi-ethnic, multi-culture Britain, the provision of information in ethnic minority languages. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
It is important that information meetings are conducted in such a way that those attending them feel safe, enjoy privacy and are respected. We welcome the fact that information about access to legal aid will be provided. We welcome also the Government's climbdown. Having been a Whip myself, I know that it made sense for the Minister to hold that office, because he had the opportunity to hear the Opposition's recommendations in Committee. As soon as he became a Minister, he decided to implement them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'is'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38 to 40.

Mr. Streeter: The amendments make minor drafting changes to tidy up clause 8 and assist in giving effect to amendments Nos. 36 and 41 to 44.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 6, line 13, at beginning insert 'is'.

No. 39, in page 6, line 15, leave out 'a person who'.

No. 40, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'and'.

No. 41, in page 6, line 24, at end insert—

'(d) for information of a prescribed kind to be given only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him; and

(e) for information to be given, in prescribed circumstances, only with the approval of the Lord Chancellor or only by a person or by persons approved by him.'.

No. 42, in page 6, line 34, at end insert—

`() protection available against violence, and how to obtain support and assistance;'.

No. 43, in page 6, line 36, at end insert 'and representation'.

No. 44, in page 6, line 36, at end insert—

`() the principles of legal aid and where the parties can get advice about obtaining legal aid;'.

No. 104, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—
`() A meeting with a marriage counsellor arranged under this section—

(a) must be held in accordance with prescribed provisions; and
(b) must be with a person qualified and appointed in accordance with prescribed provisions.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 9

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'section' to 'must' in line 34 and insert

`(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—
'(5A) Where the court considers that there is a child of the family under the age of nineteen years, a certificate must be produced to the court, in a form to be prescribed, stating that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the relevant information he requires under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 has been provided by the parties.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 99, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
'(8) If the court is satisfied, on an application made by one of the parties after the end of the period for reflection and consideration, that the circumstances of the case are those set out in paragraph 3A of Schedule 1, it may make a divorce order or a separation order even though the requirements of subsection (5A) above have not been satisfied.'.`(c) that subsection (3A) below applies.'.

No. 101, in clause 10, page 8, line 20, after `dissolved', insert
`or
'(c) that subsection (3A) below applies'.
No. 102, in page 8, line 20, at end insert—
'(3A) This subsection applies where an applicant or either of the applicants for the cancellation of an order preventing divorce has failed to comply with the requirements of section 9(5A).'.
No. 100, in schedule 1, page 42, line 42, at end insert—
`Exemption from child support requirements—
3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(8) are that—

(a) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to comply with the requirements of the Child Support Act 1991 as applied by section 9(5A);
(b) the other party has deliberately delayed in complying with the requirements of the 1991 Act as applied by section 9(5A) or has otherwise been obstructive or has failed to communicate with the applicant or the relevant authorities.'.

Mr. Field: This is also the first occasion when I have spoken to the Minister across the Dispatch Box, so I welcome him to his new post and congratulate him. It is not the first time that I have spoken since the hon. Gentleman has been on the Treasury Bench, because as a Whip, he occasionally growled approval or disapproval at my comments. I hope tonight that his bite will be a lot worse than his bark—[Interruption.] If hon. Members think about it, it is that way round, given what I am going to say.
I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. I hope to persuade the Minister, by the force of the argument, that he should concede the amendments that we wish to make. When members of the Committee decided to table the amendments, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Social Security to ask what he thought of them, as they clearly affect one aspect of his Department's work: the Child Support Agency. I expect to receive his letter in tomorrow's post. That suggests that he does not want me to be able to use anything in his letter to support my argument.
In this major reform of the divorce laws, the words "Child Support Agency" are absent. Members of the Committee thought it worth tabling the amendments so that those words, which dared not speak their name in Committee, could at least be debated and suggestions made.
I shall briefly tell the House what the amendments mean. Amendment No. 98 literally brings into call the CSA. It says that, before proceedings for divorce can be completed, the court should be satisfied that all the information that the CSA would require is available to the court and therefore to the CSA.
Amendment No. 99 does three things. It accepts that the principle of the Bill is that the clock for divorce ceases to tick away unless the mediation process has gone through. We are suggesting that, similarly, the clock should be stopped if the information wanted by the CSA is not available. We then suggest that, if that information is available, the clock should start ticking again. Amendment No. 100 proposes that, because there could be some instances when one of the parties deliberately withholds information to obstruct the spirit and the letter


of the Bill, shortly to become an Act, the court will have discretion to set child support requirements to one side. That is the kernel of our amendments.
I know that we tabled the amendments late in the proceedings, but unless they are on the record when the Bill returns to the other place, there will be no chance for the other place or for the Government further to consider them. After this short debate, after the Government have had more time to take representations and to consider outside views, and after we have had a staged debate in the other place, the Government may still decide that it is not advisable to press ahead with the amendments, should they be part of the record. In those circumstances, I expect the Minister to say that those of us who have tabled the amendments expect the Government to suggest that the amendments will be defeated, but unless we pass the amendments tonight and unless they are on the record, the possibility of strengthening the position of children and of ensuring the payment of maintenance to them will be lost.
It is in that spirit that the amendments have been tabled. We do not believe with certainty that we have drafted them in a way that could not be improved, but we are anxious that that aspect be opened up. It can be considered further only if the Government give way tonight, so that a final decision can be taken in another place.
I have said how openly I would support the Government even if, in the other place, they thought that we should not proceed with the amendments, but it is worth our debating them tonight. I hope that the Government will give way and support and improve them in the Lords, but I wait with interest to hear what the junior Minister says and to learn in tomorrow's post what the Secretary of State says.

Mr. Bermingham: I support these amendments for the one simple reason that there cannot be a Member of this House who does not have a postbag full of complaints about the Child Support Agency, about the arbitrary way it performs, about the lack of information disclosed and about the ridiculous way that it treats Members of Parliament, lawyers and the people from whom it seeks to obtain money.
When the CSA was set up, no one objected to the principle of support for the child of a liaison or a marriage or that that support should be both justifiable and reasonable. What none of us expected was the monolithic bureaucracy that we got. It will be a long time before the House examines the depth of the damage that the CSA has caused to families throughout the land. I could continue for some considerable time—but I will not—citing example after example from my constituency of marriages that have broken up and where the children who are being supported through the CSA are in a better financial position than the children of the second marriage, and where the wife of the second marriage has to go to work and utilise all her earnings and part of her husband's to meet the demands of the CSA—which, when it is shown to be wrong at tribunals, takes months to rectify mistakes—[Interruption.] When we are talking about people's lives and when children's interests are at risk, I sometimes wonder why it is so necessary for hon. Members to discuss the racing at Sandown or Ascot or other matters.
There will come a time when the CSA formula will need to be examined. Indeed, it needs to be reviewed. These amendments could be considered in the other place

as a means to examine the settlements—[Interruption.] Has the Minister finished? [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) will listen for a moment. If she had listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) had to say, she would understand that the proposal is that a divorce should not be completed until such time as the financial settlement is completed and that that financial settlement should be based on the CSA formula. That suggestion makes a good deal of sense. It will enable us, at some stage, to examine how the CSA formula is compiled and whether, in the context of divorce, it is fair.
My hon. Friend said that he will not press the amendment to a vote. What he is trying to ensure is that if the calculation of maintenance is to be based on the CSA formula, we should look again at the formula, because it has been proved to cause great hardship throughout the land. That is the point behind the probing amendments—

Mr. David Faber: They are not.

Mr. Bermingham: They are probing amendments. The hon. Gentleman should note that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is nodding, so I am right.
We are saying that the way in which maintenance is calculated is wide open to abuse and, even more important, is causing grave hardship for the children of first, second and third relationships. That is why I support the amendments.

Mr. Streeter: I listened carefully to the arguments deployed by the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), but I am afraid that I shall disappoint them. The Government have some sympathy with the motives underlying the amendments, but cannot accept them. It is clearly right that parents should make proper provision for the maintenance of their children. Clause 9 already provides that parties must decide their rights and liabilities in relation to the maintenance of children. The amendments are unnecessary, and the arguments that I shall deploy will persuade the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who is a very fair-minded man, of that fact.
The Child Support Agency already has the necessary powers to require information to be provided, and it has strong enforcement powers. The Child Support Act 1991 requires absent parents to provide the required information to ensure that a proper maintenance assessment is carried out when the parent with care—usually the mother—is in receipt of a relevant benefit. That requirement exists whether or not the parents are divorced. When there is an absent parent and the parent with care is in receipt of an appropriate benefit, the CSA will normally have become involved long before we reach the stage at which the amendments would bite.
Who are the people on whom the amendments would bite? The CSA seeks to make and enforce maintenance orders whether or not parents are married. We suspect that most of those about whom the agency is currently unable to gain full information—as to who was at some time married and who is not already divorced—have simply gone to ground. The amendments will not help in catching them.
Ninety per cent. of absent parents are fathers, but currently about 70 per cent. of petitioners for divorce are women. The amendments include an exemption such that a divorce or separation order may not be refused if the applicant has made every effort to comply with the CSA's requirements but has been unable to do so because of non-co-operation of the other party. Therefore, under these provisions, absent fathers who are not co-operating with the CSA are given no greater incentive to co-operate than they are now.
Only absent fathers who do not co-operate with the CSA and who wish to apply for a divorce will be caught by the provisions. But they will not be able to do so in secrecy, because a statement of marital breakdown will have to include an address for contact. The respondent can whip that off to the CSA, and existing provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 can be brought into play.
In short, the Government consider that only a handful of absent parents will be caught by the amendments—but at what cost? I shall deal with that shortly.
The amendments are inconsistent with the Child Support Act 1991. They relate to all divorcing or separating parents with a child under 19. Currently, the CSA usually becomes involved only when the parent with care of the child has applied for an income-related benefit, and it is concerned only with children of 16 or older in full-time education.
The amendments will, therefore, place an added burden on many people who, in the normal course of events, would not have to go anywhere near the CSA. Parents who were able and willing to reach their own agreement on child maintenance will have to apply to the agency for a certificate in every case, perhaps involving correspondence, telephone calls or an interview, which will create delay and inconvenience. That is unlikely to prove popular.
The amendments would also have significant implications for the CSA. In 1994, there were about 88,000 divorces of couples with children under 16. That means that similar numbers of certificates might have to be produced each year by the CSA. The CSA has estimated that up to 50,000 certificates would have to be issued relating to the children of people in marriages who currently would not be considered by the CSA at all. The CSA decided only recently to limit the scope of its operations, to concentrate on its core activity of basic child support work. The proposed certification process would prove a distraction for the CSA from that core work, and it would be unlikely to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South.
The amendments are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As I said, we expect the impact on non-compliance to be minimal. However, the agency estimates the cost of administering the proposed certification system at roughly £7 million per annum. If we are to spend £7 million, I could suggest more pressing priorities.

Mr. Bermingham: The Minister makes my point. There will be two groups of people: those who are in work and who agree the figures on maintenance for the wife and children between themselves, or through their lawyers; and those who are not in work, with one party—the wife, for example—in receipt of income-related

benefit, when the CSA will certify the amount to be paid for the wife and children. The tragedy is that experience has already shown that, in monetary value, the orders made by the CSA far outweigh the orders made between consenting parties. So we have two levels of maintenance, one of which is grossly unfair to a working partner—male or female.

Mr. Streeter: I am not persuaded by the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Given that one in four children will have parents who divorce, is the Minister seriously saying that in future policy there should be no interface between the new divorce law reform and the operation of child maintenance?

Mr. Streeter: For the reasons that I have given, yes.
To summarise, I sympathise with the thought behind the amendment, but the Government do not accept that it is an appropriate or cost-effective way to go about realising it. I listened with sympathy to the case made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. I recognise that he has requested that we leave something in the Bill, for it to be considered further in another place. There is no hon. Member whose request I would rather accommodate, but I regret that, on this occasion, I am unable to do so.

Mr. Frank Field: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'or'.

No. 46, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—

', Or

(d) those set out in paragraph 4 of that Schedule,'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—

'(8) If the parties' arrangements for the future include a division of pension assets under section 25B of the 1973 Act or section 10 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, any declaration under subsection (2) must be a statutory declaration.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), after 'assets', insert 'or rights'.—[Mrs. Roche.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10

HARDSHIP: ORDERS PREVENTING DIVORCE

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 8, line 22, leave out from 'if' to 'after' in line 23 and insert

`an application is made under section 3 or 4(3)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment proposed: No. 119, in page 8, line 27, after `includes', insert

'—

(a) hardship attributable to the fact that the person concerned has a deeply held religious belief that marriage is indissoluble; and
(b)'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 260.

Division No. 147]
[10.26 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Lidington, David


Arbuthnot, James
Lord, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Luff, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
McAvoy, Thomas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Malone, Gerald


Bates, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Bendall, Vivian
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Merchant, Piers


Booth, Hartley
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Boswell, Tim
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brazier, Julian
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Paice, James


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Burns, Simon
Patten, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)


Clappison, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Congdon, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Conway, Derek
Riddick, Graham


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Robathan, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Dixon, Don
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Dover, Den
Shaw, David (Dover)


Duncan, Alan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Duncan Smith, Iain
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Dunn, Bob
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Durant, Sir Anthony
Speed, Sir Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Spencer, Sir Derek


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Spink, Dr Robert


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Sproat, Iain


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Stephen, Michael


Evennett, David
Stewart, Allan


Faber, David
Streeter, Gary


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Sweeney, Walter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Fry, Sir Peter
Trend, Michael


Gale, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gallie, Phil
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Gardiner, Sir George
Viggers, Peter


Gill, Christopher
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Walden, George


Gorst, Sir John
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Waterson, Nigel


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Watts, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Wells, Bowen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Hannam, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Hargreaves, Andrew
Willetts, David


Hawksley, Warren
Wilshire, David


Horam, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Wood, Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard



Kellett-Bowman, Dame EIaine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. Michael Alison and Mr. David Alton.


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)






NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fraser, John


Alexander, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Allen, Graham
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gapes, Mike


Ashton, Joe
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, John


Barron, Kevin
Gerrard, Neil


Batiste, Spencer
Gillan, Cheryl


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bayley, Hugh
Godsiff, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Berry, Roger
Graham, Thomas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boateng, Paul
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Body, Sir Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brandreth, Gyles
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Sir Graham
Hanson, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Byers, Stephen
Hendry, Charles


Callaghan, Jim
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Cann, Jamie
Hodge, Margaret


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chidgey, David
Hood, Jimmy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clapham, Michael
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ann
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cohen, Harry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Jack, Michael


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jamieson, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Devlin, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eastham, Ken
Kirkwood, Archy


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Etherington, Bill
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Fatchett, Derek
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lewis, Terry


Fisher, Mark
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Llwyd, Elfyn


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Forth, Eric
McCartney, Ian


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McFall, John






MacKay, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McKelvey, William
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Maddock, Diana
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mahon, Alice
Short, Clare


Mandelson, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J (Springburm)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Spring, Richard


Meale, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Milburn, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Moate, Sir Roger
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sykes, John


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tipping, Paddy


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Touhig, Don


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Tredinnick, David


Olner, Bill
Trickett, Jon


Oppenheim, Phillip
Turner, Dennis


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Walley, Joan


Pendry, Tom
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L
Whittingdale, John


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wilkinson, John


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Wolfson, Mark


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Rathbone, Tim
Wright, Dr Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Reid, Dr John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rendel, David



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. Peter Bottomley and Ms Janet Anderson.


Rooker, Jeff

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15

DIVISION OF PENSION ASSETS

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 11, leave out lines 1 to 18.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Clause 18

TIME WHEN PROCEEDINGS FOR DIVORCE OR SEPARATION BEGIN

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 12, line 40, after `4' insert '(3)'.

No. 50, in page 13, line 3, after second 'the' insert specified'.

No. 51, in page 13, line 8, after '4' insert '(3)'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 20

FUNDING FOR MARRIAGE SUPPORT SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—

'(3) In exercising his power to make grants in connection with the provision of marriage support services, the Lord Chancellor is to have regard, in particular, to the desirability of services of that kind being available when they are first needed.'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 21

INTERPRETATION OF PART II ETC.

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 13, line 30, at end insert—

' "non-molestation order" has the meaning given by section 39(1);

"occupation order" has the meaning given by section 36;'.—[Mr. Conway.]

Clause 24

PROVISION AND AVAILABILITY OF MEDIATION

Mrs. Roche: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 15, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 43 and insert—
'(6) Any contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must require the mediator to comply with a code of practice.
(6A) The code must require.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 16, line 1, at end insert—
`() that parties participate in mediation only if willing and not influenced by fear of violence or other harm;
() that cases where either party may be influenced by fear of violence or other harm are identified as soon as possible;'.
No. 112, in page 16, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 6.
Government amendment No. 54.
No. 4, in clause 26, page 18, line 14, after `prescribed.', insert—
'(3G) Notwithstanding subsection (3F) above, for the purposes of determining whether to grant representation for the purpose of any proceedings, taking proceedings is to be considered, to the extent that the proceedings relate to family matters, as more appropriate than recourse to mediation where harm or ill-treatment is an issue between the parties except where—

(a) a mediator has certified that each party has separately stated a wish to have recourse to mediation; and
(b) the mediator has certified that he has taken all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that each such statement has been made voluntarily.'.

Mrs. Roche: Members of the Standing Committee will remember that we spent much time discussing mediation. Those discussions were helpful because several hon. Members had considerable experience of mediation schemes, either from a national perspective or from their role as constituency Members. Mediation is an important part of the Bill.
The Opposition were concerned about the suitability of mediation in cases of domestic violence. The amendments seek to ensure that mediation does not take place where violence to the parties or their children is involved, and that it is voluntary. They would ensure that the parties are informed at information meetings that mediation is not suitable in such cases so that the picture is clear from the start.
In Committee, it was felt that we did not want a two-tier system where some people would be able to get legal advice because they could afford it or were eligible for it, while people who did not fall in into either of those categories might feel that the only thing that they could use was mediation, which might not be suitable in all circumstances. The amendments would ensure that mediators screen all potential clients to establish whether violence is an issue between the parties, that that is kept under review throughout mediation and that mediation is safely terminated if it becomes apparent that violence is an issue.
The issue concerns those who are involved professionally with mediation. Research by mediation agencies shows that it is both unsafe and inappropriate in most cases in which there is a history of abuse. Sadly, as has been said, in far too many marriages there are incidents of abuse, in most cases—not exclusively, but in most cases—involving abuse of the wife. A background of violence and threats can significantly affect the victim's ability to contribute effectively or to negotiate a fair settlement. Experience with the Children Act 1989 shows that many women feel pressured into agreeing to joint meetings, or even mediation, with their abusers because they fear losing their children if they do not. Research shows that that has happened in numerous cases, even though joint meetings are not compulsory.
It must be made clear to the parties in divorce that mediation is unlikely to be the best method of resolving arrangements fairly and safely when there is violence. It must also be made clear to mediators that they have a duty to investigate the possibility of harm to, or ill-treatment of, a party to ensure that parties are not inappropriately referred to mediation and denied access to legal aid or representation.
Some women escaping violence may choose third-party mediation, but the amendments seek to ensure that there is a clear choice and that people know what the situation is. As the Minister knows, that was extensively canvassed in Committee. It is one of the most important issues dealt with by the Bill. The Opposition believe that the amendments are crucial to ensure that there is a level playing field for the victims of violence, both women and children. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Streeter: When I rise to speak and my wife is present, she always says to me, "Keep it short," but that is as nothing compared with what the Whips have been saying to me over the past few minutes.
Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 amend clause 24 and provide a number of important safeguards and a strengthening of the provisions in relation to the provision of publicly funded mediation. In particular, they stress the voluntary nature of mediation—that where parties are influenced by fear of violence or harm, the mediator should be in a position to identify this at an early stage and mediation should not continue.
These are in addition to the requirements that mediators must have arrangements in place to ensure that the possibility of reconciliation is kept alive throughout mediation and to keep the parties informed about the availability of independent legal advice. They provide that the Legal Aid Board's contracts with mediators will require mediators to be working under, and complying with, a code of practice setting out the requirements that I have described.
Additionally, the code will require arrangements to be in place that are designed to encourage the parties to consider the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child and to what extent each child should be allowed to express their wishes in the mediation. I understand that the major mediation organisations already have in place such codes of practice, and it must be right to ensure that standards of excellence are maintained. The amendments are important and worth while and the Government are pleased to support them.
Amendment No. 54, which is a Government amendment, and amendment No. 4, are both concerned with clause 26, the presumption in favour of mediation. I ask the House to support the Government's amendment, which addresses the same issues as amendment No. 4, but provides a neater solution. Amendment No. 54 provides for the removal of the presumption in favour of mediation, which had aroused concern among many hon. Members in all parts of the House. However, amendment No. 4 retains the presumption in favour of mediation. It was made clear by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that this was not desirable. Furthermore, it adds a new presumption in favour of representation in cases where harm or ill-treatment are an issue. This sets up a potentially confusing conflict for the board, the mediator and the client when suitability for mediation is being considered.
The requirement to attend the meeting will not apply if there are proceedings under part IV of the legislation—that is to say, applications for remedies in cases of molestation and violence, section 37 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 emergency applications for freezing of assets where there are assets about to be removed from the jurisdiction, and public law Children Act 1989 cases.
The amendments will provide the necessary protection for vulnerable parties and those for whom mediation is not suitable while safeguarding public funds from the expense of unnecessary litigation. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to the development of mediation in family matters and I commend them to the House.
Government amendment No. 54 deals with the concerns raised in Committee and provides that there will be no presumption in favour of either mediation or representation. This seems to be a more effective and simpler way of achieving the even-handed approach for which amendment No. 4 appears to strive. We therefore reject amendment No. 4 and support the other amendments.

Mrs. Roche: I welcome the Minister's remarks and his support for our amendments, apart from amendment No. 4. We shall not press amendment No. 4, but will support Government amendment No. 54.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 16, line 1, at end insert—

.() that parties participate in mediation only if willing and not influenced by fear of violence or other harm;

() that cases where either party may be influenced by fear of violence or other harm are identified as soon as possible;'.

No. 112, in page 16, line 4, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 6.

No. 106, in page 16, line 8, leave out `and' and insert—

'(6B) Where there are one or more children of the family, the code must also require the mediator to have arrangements designed to ensure that the parties are encouraged to consider:

(a) the welfare, wishes and feelings of each child; and
(b) whether and to what extent each child should be given the opportunity to express his or her wishes and feelings in the mediation.

(6C) A contract entered into by the Board for the provision of mediation under this Part must also include.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 26

MEDIATION AND CIVIL LEGAL AID

Amendment made: No. 54, in page 18, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—

' "(3F) A person shall not be granted representation for the purposes of proceedings relating to family matters, unless he has attended a meeting with a mediator—

(a) to determine—

(i) whether mediation appears suitable to the dispute and the parties and all the circumstances, and
(ii) in particular, whether mediation could take place without either party being influenced by fear of violence or other harm; and
(b) if mediation does appear suitable, to help the person applying for representation to decide whether instead to apply for mediation.

(3G) Subsection (3F) does not apply—

(a) in relation to proceedings under—

(i) Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996;
(ii) section 37 of the Matrimonial 'Causes Act 1973;
(iii) Part IV or V of the Children Act 1989;
(b) in relation to proceedings of any other description that may be prescribed; or
(c) in such circumstances as may be prescribed.

(3H) So far as proceedings relate to family matters, the Board, in determining under subsection (3)(a) whether, in relation to the proceedings, it is reasonable that a person should be granted representation under this Part—

(a) must have regard to whether and to what extent recourse to mediation would be a suitable alternative to taking the proceedings; and
(b) must for that purpose have regard to the outcome of the meeting held under subsection (3F) and to any assessment made for the purposes of section 13B(3)."'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 32

ONE FORMER SPOUSE WITH NO EXISTING RIGHT TO OCCUPY

Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in page 23, leave out lines 17 to 25 and insert—
'(1) This section applies if—


(a) one cohabitant, former cohabitant, or former spouse is entitled to occupy a dwelling house by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract, or by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation;
(b) the cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse is not so entitled; and
(c) the dwelling house—

(i) in the case of the cohabitants or former cohabitants, is the home in which they live together as husband and wife or a home in which they at any time so lived together or intended so to live together, or
(ii) in the case of a former spouse, was at any time their matrimonial home or was at any time intended by them to be their matrimonial home.

(2) The cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse not so entitled may apply to the court for an order under this section against the other cohabitant, former cohabitant or former spouse ("the respondent").'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 116, in clause 33, page 25, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 27.
Government amendment No. 55.
No. 117, in clause 34, page 27, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
'(1) This section applies if—

(a) one spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant and the other spouse, former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant occupy a dwelling house which—

(i) in the case of cohabitants or former cohabitants, is the home in which they live or have lived together as husband and wife, or
(ii) in the case of spouses or former spouses, is or was the matrimonial home; but
(b) neither of them is entitled to remain in occupation—

(i) by virtue of a beneficial estate or interest or contract; or
(ii) by virtue of any enactment giving him the right to remain in occupation.'.
No. 118, in clause 35, page 27, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 28.
Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58.

Mrs. Maddock: I am aware that the hour is late and that everybody is attempting to hurry. I will do my best, but these are important amendments concerning domestic violence—the one thing that we thought we were going to lose when the Bill fell before Christmas. The purposes of the amendments are to restore the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill in relation to occupation rights, to give equal rights to cohabitants for protection from violence and to restore the principal criteria for eligibility between different types of occupation orders to the applicant's status in relation to their existing rights to occupy.
Clauses 33 and 35 are to be deleted, and the provisions for cohabitants and former cohabitants reinstated within clauses 32 and 34 so that, irrespective of marital status, the court should have a requirement to include an exclusion provision in the occupation order if the applicant and any relevant child is at greater risk of harm


than the respondent and any relevant child. In other words, the balance of harm test should be reinstated as the paramount consideration in determining the matter. Occupation orders under all the clauses should be able to be extended in the time period and the stages set within the different clauses for an unlimited period, bearing it in mind that the court has complete discretion over the length of orders according to all the factors in the case.
Many people are concerned that the amendments to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill—as set out now in part IV of the Family Law Bill—deny equal rights to protection from violence to those cohabitees with no existing legal right to occupy. Clauses 33 and 35 are very unfair, and will create hardship for those experiencing violence in longer-term common law relationships. That is what we are talking about.

Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Lady states that she is looking at longer-term cohabiting relationships. Can she give some idea of the length of time she is referring to? Although we condemn violence against any person, many of us are concerned that it is possible that someone in a short-term relationship could seek an ouster order and take over a property.

Mrs. Maddock: The very next part of what I was going to say deals with that issue. Discretion is needed by the courts to deal fairly with cohabitees on the basis of the nature and length of their relationship. That was present in the original drafting of the Bill, which would have allowed for extremely limited rights of occupation for temporary relief from violence to be granted where the relationship between an applicant and a respondent was recent and unstable. The original Bill provided only limited rights.
The newspapers and other media blew this matter up and misrepresented the facts. I merely wanted to go back to where we were originally, because the newly redrafted clauses discriminate against many common law wives who have had a long-term relationship and who are sometimes legally entitled to an interest in the home in any case. We want to go back to the original drafting of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 35 limit occupation rights to a maximum period of one year. In certain circumstances—particularly where alternative housing options are poor, or where there is illness—there may be insufficient time in which to find alternative accommodation for a mother and her children. My amendment seeks to delete those clauses, but does not stop the courts saying that the period should be only a short one.
It may help if I explain how clauses 33 and 35 would undermine just and fair resolutions. For example, a woman may have experienced violence after moving in with a common law partner several years ago when he was the original owner or tenant. They may have moved in together, but he may have insisted that the property be put in his name. If there are children of the relationship, the woman will find it harder to leave to escape violence, and she will frequently try hard to make the relationship work, especially for the children. She may also be directly contributing to the rent or the mortgage. She is likely to be contributing to household

overheads and she will be very likely to have invested earned income or the value of her unwaged work in the household economy.
A woman in that position may be able to make a legal claim for recognition of her contribution if the relationship breaks down irrevocably, but that may take years and it will not help her with protection from violence in the immediate future. It may well be that her common law partner has refused to marry her, and has refused to put her name on the rent book or the mortgage deeds, precisely because that leaves him with all the financial cards in the relationship and therefore more power and control over the family. We know that that sort of thing happens. Limiting rights of protection from abuse for women in that position is unlikely to create more incentives for such men to marry. That is one of the key points. The current re-drafting of part IV completely fails to address that aspect of domestic violence as it manifests itself in many relationships today.
The Bill purports to be gender neutral, but the example that I have given of a woman in a long-term cohabiting relationship reveals how frequently power and financial advantage within the family are not gender neutral and may provide greater incentives for men not to marry. Women need protection by law from violence. In many cases, commitment to the welfare of the children and the creation of a stable family does exist outside marriage, but the protection of children and of the non-abusing parent, who is often a woman, at risk from violence, should be the paramount consideration.
We have heard people say that passing such an amendment will undermine marriage, but I look at it differently. If we do not pass it, we are saying that people who live together and have children do not have the same responsibilities as married people and that in some ways it is not so bad if they commit violence against the people they live with. We should be saying that, regardless of whether people are married or in a long-term relationship and not officially married, violence is unacceptable and the woman deserves to be protected. It sends a message to men that they cannot avoid their responsibilities to women by not marrying.
I urge the House to support the amendments.

Mr. Streeter: The intention behind amendments Nos. 115 to 118 is to remove any differences between the way in which spouses and cohabitants are treated when applying for occupation orders. To that extent, I believe that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) is misguided.
The amendments will have the effect of removing two of the changes made in part IV. First, in the case of cohabitants who have no entitlement to occupy the property, there is a restriction on the length of time for which they can receive the benefit of an occupation order. The limit in the Bill is six months, renewable only once. The amendment would allow indefinite renewals at the discretion of the court, which is the position of non-entitled spouses. The Government believe that an occupation order in favour of a person not entitled to occupy the property should essentially be to provide short-term protection for the victim while they seek


alternative accommodation. A year should be sufficient to do so. It is important to recognise that, during that time, a person who is entitled to occupy the property will be prevented from doing so. In the case of marriage, which has involved a lifelong commitment, there may be instances where the court feels that it is just to make a longer order in favour of the non-entitled spouse, but such cases must be left to the discretion of the court.
Secondly, the clauses were redrafted to adjust the operation of the balance of harm test. There was widespread opposition to the suggestion that the court be placed under a duty to grant an occupation order with a restriction or exclusion provision in favour of a non-entitled cohabitant. That is reflected in the clauses as drafted. The amendments would place on the court the same duty in respect of the balance of harm test for both non-entitled spouses and cohabitants. The Government believe that they have ensured that the question of harm to non-entitled cohabitants and to relevant children will be fully considered by the court, by placing in the Bill as drafted an explicit duty on the court to consider that question. The court is not fettered in any way from acting as it sees fit, having considered the question of harm and all the other circumstances of the case.
In considering the circumstances of the case in deciding whether to make an order in favour of an applicant who is a non-entitled cohabitant or former cohabitant under clause 33, the court is required to have regard to the nature of the parties' relationship and to the length of the time during which they have lived together as husband and wife—the very point that the hon. Member for Christchurch seeks to address. The amendments would also remove this requirement. As I mentioned before, the Government believe that there is a difference between cohabitation and marriage, and we believe that it is proper that the difference is reflected in the considerations of the court. We believe that that is the overwhelming view of the House. However, that does not mean that the court will necessarily come to different conclusions in the two cases, given the concern of the court in these matters to afford effective protection from domestic violence.
The amendments almost completely eradicate the differences between those who have given the commitment of marriage and those who have not. They are not acceptable to the Government and I ask the House to reject them. Government amendments Nos. 56 to 58 are acceptable and I urge the House to support them.

11 pm

Mrs. Maddock: I anticipated the Minister's reaction to the amendments and I maintain that the Government are wrong on this. They are encouraging men not to commit themselves to long-term relationships and denying help to women who are in long-term cohabiting relationships where men hold all the cards. If the amendments are not passed, the principle of men holding all the cards will be upheld. The Government's attitude is disappointing and I hope that many hon. Members will support the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 261.

Division No. 148]
[11.00 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Godsiff, Roger


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Armstrong, Hilary
Gordon, Mildred


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Graham, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Grooott, Bruce


Bayley, Hugh
Gunnell, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hain, Peter


Bennett, Andrew F
Hanson, David


Benton, Joe
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Berry, Roger
Harvey, Nick


Boateng, Paul
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hinchliffe, David


Burden, Richard
Hodge, Margaret


Byers, Stephen
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callaghan, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Khabra, Piara S


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Denham, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maclennan, Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
MacShane, Denis


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maddock, Diana


Galbraith, Sam
Mahon, Alice


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)






Martlew, Eric
Rowlands, Ted


Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Milbum, Alan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & Fsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dennis


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Wallace, James


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Walley, Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Rendel, David



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.


Rooney, Terry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clappison, James


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Body, Sir Richard
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Sir Graham
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)





Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Faber, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fabricant, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marland, Paul


Fishburn, Dudley
Marlow, Tony


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forth, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gallie, Phil
Moate, Sir Roger


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Garnier, Edward
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gillan, Cheryl
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gorst, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hague, Rt Hon William
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Richard


Hannam, Sir John
Paice, James


Hargreaves, Andrew
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hawkins, Nick
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hawksley, Warren
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rathbone, Tim


Horam, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jenkin, Bernard
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Leigh, Edward
Spring, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lidington, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whittingdale, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.


Ward, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 31

EFFECT OF ORDER UNDER S. 30 WHERE RIGHTS ARE CHARGE ON DWELLING-HOUSE

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 26, line 31, leave out `(e)' and insert '(d)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 38

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS IF PARTIES ARE COHABITANTS OR FORMER COHABITANTS

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 29, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'have', in line 39, and insert—

'(2) Where the court is required to consider the nature of the parties' relationship, it is to have regard to the fact that they'.

No. 57, in page 29, leave out line 41.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 45

REMAND FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND REPORT

Amendment made: No. 58, in page 33, line 31, leave out from 'issued' to end and insert

`on an application made under section 44(8)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 60

RULES, REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 41, line 23, at end insert—

'() This section does not apply to rules of court made, or any power to make rules of court, for the purposes of this Act.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Clause 62

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 41, line 35, after 'that' insert—
'—
(a)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 62, 77 to 86 and 96.

Mr. Streeter: These are minor, technical and consequential amendments to clause 62 and schedules 3, 8 and 10. They do not make policy changes, and I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 41, line 37, leave out 'and'.

No. 62, in page 41, line 39, at end insert

'; and

(iii) the amendments of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the Finance Act 1985 and sections 42 and 51 of the Family Law Act 1986 extend also to both Northern Ireland and Scotland; and

(b) in Schedule 10, the repeal of section 2(1)(b) of the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Act 1968 extends also to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 1

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 42, line 6, leave out

`41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

`(Welfare of children)'.

No. 14, in page 42, line 21, leave out

`41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

'(Welfare of children)'.

No. 15, in page 42, line 39, leave out

`41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

`(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 42, line 42, at end insert—

`The fourth exemption

3A. The circumstances referred to in section 9(7)(d) are that—

(a) the requirements of section 41 of the 1973 Act have been satisfied;
(b) an occupation order or a non-molestation order is in force in favour of the applicant or a child of the family, made against the other party;
(c) the applicant has, during the period for reflection and consideration, taken such steps as are reasonably practicable to try to reach agreement about the parties' financial arrangements;
(d) the applicant has not been able to reach agreement with the other party about those arrangements and is unlikely to be able to do so in the foreseeable future; and
(e) a delay in making the order applied for under section 3—

(i) would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family; or
(ii) would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment made to the proposed amendment: (a), leave out

'41 of the 1973 Act'

and insert

`(Welfare of children)'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2

FINANCIAL PROVISION

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 45, leave out lines 9 to 12.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

(a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or
(b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

(i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and
(ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier.'.
No. 120, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—
`(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

(a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or
(b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

(i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and
(ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier.'.
Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
No. 114, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
'(1 A) No property adjustment order may be made under section 23A above before the end of the first six months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

(a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or
(b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

(i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and
(ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to
be made earlier.'.
No. 121, in page 48, line 45, at end insert—
'(1A) No property adjustment order may be made under section 23A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

(a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or
(b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

(i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and
(ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to
be made earlier.'.
Government amendments Nos. 67 to 76 and 87 to 92.

Mr. Streeter: Amendments Nos. 64 to 76 make drafting changes and minor corrections to schedule 2 but make no policy changes, and I commend them to the House.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) moves amendments Nos. 120 and 121, which relate to the making of three-month restrictions on the making of property and other orders, I can accept them. That restriction may be of some benefit to couples who want to reconcile from the time of attending the information session to the time that the court can make a contested order. There will generally be six months to seek a reconciliation before a contested order is made. Once the court has made an order, reconciliation is still facilitated by the power of the court to vary orders on reconciliation. The court also has power to vary all types of property adjustment orders, and lump sum orders, made before a divorce or separation order is made. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 113 and 114 and ask my hon. Friend not to move them.
Amendments Nos. 87, 91, 92, 88, 89 and 90 are technical and sensible, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Brazier: Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 would provide three months' extra reflection and consideration in certain circumstances before final financial and property orders can be made. That provision has nothing to do with the total time taken before a divorce is granted but everything to do with trying to save marriages that may still be saveable after the couple have begun the divorce process.
In cases of domestic violence, eviction orders would be totally unaffected. In the same way, where there is genuine financial need, interim financial orders will also be unaffected.
The amendments would assist in saving saveable marriages because once the family home is broken up in a property order or financial orders have been made, the couple in question are a long way down the road of a marriage break-up. The House has made it absolutely clear that it wants pause for thought in divorce and has voted for, in most cases, 18 months to achieve it. It would be strange if it were possible in all circumstances after just three months for couples to start the machinery that will effectively break up their marriage.
This modest pair of amendments provide for three additional months, making six months, before the final property or financial order can be negotiated—subject to a string of let-outs. The Conservative Family Campaign's legal advisers say that those let-outs will probably apply in the majority of cases. There will be a let-out in cases that are uncontested and in which the court rules that exceptional circumstances make that just and reasonable—and the courts are only too willing to allow exceptional circumstances. None the less, in the residue of cases where divorce is contested and there are no special circumstances, people will be required to reflect for six months before they set their decision in concrete. That can only be a good thing and in line with the wishes of the House—which voted for a much longer period for divorce. I urge the House to support both amendments, which would halt the machinery of divorce a little longer.

Mr. Boateng: We well understand what motivates the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in tabling the amendments. In the real world, however, it is not possible for the parties to be held, as it were, frozen in suspended animation while the world goes on around them. That is not how it happens in the divorce process. As we have


consistently said, we need to intervene early by pathways to reconciliation. Once those pathways have been explored, there is no point in freezing the machinery any further. If reconciliation is not possible, in the children's interests, the impulse must be to move quickly to agreement in relation to property and to children.
Therefore, we will with regret, but absolute certainty vote against the amendments. They do not promote reconciliation or assist the process. On the contrary, they present yet another element of complexity that will create only uncertainty and do harm. We will oppose the amendments.

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Mr. Brazier: With the leave of the House,

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was seeking to intervene, but, as the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) had already sat down, the situation cannot arise.

Mr. Streeter: With the leave of the House, I have noted carefully what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has said. He is wrong.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Streeter: Of course.

Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has effectively made a case for abridging the total divorce process. I ask the House to think what possible logic there is in having a total divorce process that takes 18 months, but, if people want, in setting it all in concrete in every case after three months.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The amendments are modest and sensible and I urge my colleagues to support them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 120, in page 46, line 14, at end insert—

'(1A) No financial provision order, other than an interim order, may be made under section 22A above before the end of the first three months of the period for reflection and consideration, unless—

(a) it is an order in the terms applied for to which the other party agrees; or
(b) it takes effect, in accordance with subsection (1), before the making of a divorce order or separation order, and the court is satisfied—

(i) that there are exceptional circumstances, and
(ii) that it would be just and reasonable for the order to be made earlier:.—[Mr. Brazier.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 223.

Division No. 149]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Hawksley, Warren


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Alton, David
Hendry, Charles


Amess, David
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Arbuthnot, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hunter, Andrew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bates, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Bellingham, Henry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Boswell, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Leigh, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Brandreth, Gyles
Lidington, David


Brazier, Julian
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Butcher, John
Maftland, Lady Olga


Carrington, Matthew
Malone, Gerald


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Marlow, Tony


Clappison, James
Merchant, Piers


Coe, Sebastian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Congdon, David
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Conway, Derek
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nelson, Anthony


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Norris, Steve


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Paice, James


Dover, Den
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Duncan, Alan
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Duncan Smith, Iain
Patten, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Bob
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Pawsey, James


Dykes, Hugh
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fabricant, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Robathan, Andrew


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gallie, Phil
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Garnier, Edward
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gill, Christopher
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Gillan, Cheryl
Sackville, Tom


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gorst, Sir John
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Sims, Sir Roger


Hague, Rt Hon William
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas






Spencer, Sir Derek
Viggers, Peter


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Walden, George


Stephen, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Ward, John


Streeter, Gary
Waterson, Nigel


Sweeney, Walter
Watts, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John



Whittingdale, John


Thomason, Roy
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Dr. Robert Spink and Mr. Michael Brown.


Vaughan, Sir Gerard





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fishburn, Dudley


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Battle, John
Forth, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Berry, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Boateng, Paul
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brown, N. (N'c'tle Tyne E)
Godsiff, Roger


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Butterfill, John
Graham, Thomas


Byers, Stephen
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Wn (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hain, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Hardy, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Churchill, Mr
Harvey, Nick


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ann
Hodge, Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Ingram, Adam


Denham, John
Jack, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dowd, Jim
Jamieson, David





Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pickles, Eric


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Tessa
Pope, Greg


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Keen, Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


Kirkwood, Archy
Randall, Stuart


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knox, Sir David
Raynsford, Nick


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Reid, Dr John


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Short, Clare


Lynne, Ms Liz
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Chris (Isl'tonS& F'sbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Soley, Clive


MacKay, Andrew
Spellar, John


McKelvey, William
Spring, Richard


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclennan, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


MacShane, Denis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Maddock, Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mahon, Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marek, Dr John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J (Springbum)
Touhig, Don


Martlew, Eric
Trickett, Jon


Maxton, John
Turner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Vaz, Keith


Michael, Alun
Wallace, James


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Milburn, Alan
Wells, Bowen


Miller, Andrew
Whitney, Ray


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Rhodri
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Worthington, Tony


Mudie, George
Wright, Dr Tony


Mullin, Chris
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)



O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


Olner, Bill
Ms Janet Anderson and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.


Oppenheim, Phillip

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 46, line 18, leave out from 'consideration' to end of line 19 and insert

`is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.

No. 66, in page 46, line 34, at end insert—

'(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.

No. 67, in page 48, line 48, leave out from `consideration' to end of line 49 and insert

`is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.'.

No. 68, in page 49, line 10, leave out '22A' and insert '23A'.

No. 69, in page 49, line 15, at end insert—

`(5) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act." '.

No. 70, in page 49, line 43, after `(b)' insert

`above, unless sub-paragraph (ia) below applies,'.

No. 71, in page 49, line 44, at end insert—

'(ia) where the order is made by virtue of section 22A(2)(b) above and the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, than the date of the making of that application;'.

No. 72, in page 49, line 45, leave out 'or (d)' and insert `above'.

No. 73, in page 50, line 16, after 'above' insert

', except where paragraph (aa) below applies,'.

No. 74, in page 50, line 17, at end insert—

`(aa) in the case of an order made by virtue of section 22A(2)(b) above where the application for the divorce order was made following cancellation of an order preventing divorce under section 10 of the 1996 Act, the date of the making of that application;'.

No. 75, in page 50, line 18, leave out 'such'.

No. 76, in page 50, line 18, leave out 'or (d)'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 3

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 51, line 43, after `means' insert

'—

(a)'.

No. 78, in page 51, line 44, at end insert 'or

(b) if the proceedings are for the conversion of a separation order into a divorce order under section 4 of the Family Law Act 1996, the statement of marital breakdown by reference to which the separation order was made.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 66, line 37, leave out from 'In' to 'section'.

No. 80, in page 66, line 38, after 'applies)' insert

'—

(a) in subsection (2)(a)(i),'.

No. 81, in page 66, line 39, leave out 'and'.

No. 82, in page 66, line 39, at end insert; and

(b) in subsection (2)(c)(v), after "Matrimonial Causes Act 1973" insert "(as that Act had effect immediately before the passing of the Family Law Act 1996)".'.

No. 83, in page 67, leave out lines 4 to 13.

No. 84, in page 67, line 46, at end insert—
'Proceedings after decree nisi: general powers of court
15B.—(1) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act but not made absolute, then, without prejudice to section 15A above, any person (excluding a party to the proceedings other than the Queen's Proctor) may show cause why the decree should not be made absolute by reason of material facts not having been brought before the court; and in such a case the court may—


(a) notwithstanding anything in section 15 above (but subject to section 41 below) make the decree absolute; or
(b) rescind the decree; or
(c) require further inquiry; or
(d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit.

(2) Where a decree of nullity of marriage has been granted under this Act and no application for it to be made absolute has been made by the party to whom it was granted, then, at any time after the expiration of three months from the earliest date on which that party could have made such an application, the party against whom it was granted may make an application to the court, and on that application the court may exercise any of the powers mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above.'.

No. 85, in page 67, line 47, after 'divorce' insert 'to'.

No. 86, in page 67, line 48, leave out from '19)' to end of line 6 on page 68 and insert

'—

(a) for "1(5), 8 and 9" substitute "15, 15A and 15B"; and
(b) for "divorce" in both places substitute "nullity of marriage".'.

No. 87, in page 69, line 10, at end insert

`and, if the first party has already applied to the court for the making of such an order, it may dismiss the application.'.

No. 88, in page 69, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'substitute' in line 26 and insert—
`—(1) Section 27 (financial provision orders etc. in case of failure to provide proper maintenance) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5)—

(a) after "an order requiring the respondent" insert "—

(a)"; and
(b) at the end insert ", or

(b) to pay to the applicant such lump sum or sums as the court thinks reasonable."

(3) For subsection (6)'.

No. 89, in page 69, line 31, at end insert—
'(4) In subsection (7), for "(6)(c) or (f)" substitute "(6)".'.

No. 90, in page 72, line 9, at end insert

',so far as it requires the making of periodical payments." `.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 72, leave out lines 27 to 46.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 73, line 22, after '22A' insert 'or 23'.

No. 92, in page 75, line 35, leave out from 'etc.)' to end of line 45 and insert

'—
(a) after paragraph (b), insert—
(bb) is executed in pursuance of an order of a court which is made at any time under section 22A, 23A or 24A of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or"; and
(b) in paragraph (c), for "or their judicial separation" substitute ", their judicial separation or the making of a separation order in respect of them".'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 9

MODIFICATIONS, SAVING AND TRANSITIONAL

Amendment made: No. 107, in page 83, line 15, at end insert—


`Transitional arrangements for those who have been living apart
.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide for the application of Part II to marital proceedings which—

(a) are begun during the transitional period, and
(b) relate to parties to a marriage who immediately before the beginning of that period were living apart,

subject to such modifications (which may include omissions) as may be prescribed.

(2) An order made under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision as to the evidence which a party who claims to have been living apart from the other party immediately before the beginning of the transitional period must produce to the court.

(3) In this paragraph—
marital proceedings" has the same meaning as in section 21;
prescribed" means prescribed by the order; and
transitional period" means the period of two years
beginning with the day on which section 3 is brought into force.'.—[Mr. Nicholas Brown.]

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 84, line 13, leave out from 'affects' to end of line 14 and insert

'—

() any decree granted before the coming into force of the provision;
() any proceedings begun, by petition or otherwise, before that time; or
() any decree granted in any such proceedings;'.

No. 94, in page 84, line 19, after first 'proceedings' insert 'or decree'.

No. 95, in page 84, line 20, leave out from 'any' to third 'or' and insert 'such proceedings or decree;'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 86, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert—



`Sections 9 and 10'.


—[Mr. Streeter.]

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 86, column 3, leave out lines 43 and 44 and insert—

'In section 41, in subsection (1) the words "divorce or" and "or a decree of judicial separation" and in subsection (2) the words "divorce or" and "or that the decree of judicial separation is not to be granted.".'.—[Mr. Llwyd.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Streeter.]

The House divided: Ayes 427, Noes 9.

Division No. 150]
[11.38 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Allen, Graham
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Barron, Kevin


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Armstrong, Hilary
Battle, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bayley, Hugh


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ashton, Joseph
Bellingham, Henry





Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Berry, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bowis, John
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bradley, Keith
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evennett, David


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Faber, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bums, Simon
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Burt, Alistair
Fishbum, Dudley


Butcher, John
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Peter
Flynn, Paul


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Byers, Stephen
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Cabom, Richard
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (File NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Canavan, Dennis
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Fyfe, Maria


Carrington, Matthew
Galbraith, Sam


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike


Chisholm, Malcolm
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Churchill, Mr
Garnier, Edward


Clapham, Michael
Garrett, John


Clappison, James
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godsiff, Roger


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Coffey, Ann
Gorst, Sir John


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Congdon, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Connarty, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Conway, Derek
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Couchman, James
Gunnell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cox, Tom
Hain, Peter


Cran, James
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cummings, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hannam, Sir John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hanson, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hardy, Peter


Curry, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Dalyell, Tam
Harman, Ms Harriet


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S"worth)
Harvey, Nick


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hawkins, Nick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hawksley, Warren


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Hayes, Jerry


Day, Stephen
Heald, Oliver


Denham, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hendry, Charles






Heppell, John
McAllion, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
McAvoy, Thomas


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
McCartney, Ian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
McFall, John


Hinchliffe, David
MacKay, Andrew


Hodge, Margaret
McKelvey, William


Hoey, Kate
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hood, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maclennan, Robert


Horam, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
MacShane, Denis


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Madden, Max


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Maddock, Diana


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Mahon, Alice


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Malone, Gerald


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mandelson, Peter


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Marek, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Marland, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Marlow, Tony


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hunter, Andrew
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Illsley, Eric
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Ingram, Adam
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Jack, Michael
Martlew, Eric


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Maxton, John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Meacher, Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Merchant, Piers


Jamieson, David
Michael, Alun


Jenkin, Bernard
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Milbum, Alan


Jessel, Toby
Miller, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Moate, Sir Roger


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Morgan, Rhodri


Jowell, Tessa
Morley, Elliot


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Keen, Alan
Mudie, George


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Mullin, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Murphy, Paul


Khabra, Piara S
Nelson, Anthony


Kilfoyle, Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Kirkhope, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick


Kirkwood, Archy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Knapman, Roger
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Norris, Steve


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Knox, Sir David
Olner, Bill


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ottaway, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Page, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Paice, James


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Lidington, David
Pawsey, James


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Pickles, Eric


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Pickthall, Colin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Pike, Peter L


Lord, Michael
Pope, Greg


Luff, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Porter, David (Waveney)





Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Straw, Jack


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Streeter, Gary


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Sweeney, Walter


Quin, Ms Joyce
Sykes, John


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Rendel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Rooker, Jeff
Tredinnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trickett, Jon


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sackville, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sheerman, Barry
Wallace, James


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Walley, Joan


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Short, Clare
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sims, Sir Roger
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watts, John


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitney, Ray


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Spink, Dr Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Spring, Richard
Wilson, Brian


Sproat, Iain
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wray, Jimmy


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wright, Dr Tony


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stephen, Michael



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Stott, Roger





NOES


Alton, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Cann, Jamie
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Dr. Jeremy Bray and Mr. Edward Leigh


Patten, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Cornton Vale Prison (Suicides)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Mr. John McFall: I am privileged to have this debate on suicides at Cornton Vale prison. The latest case concerned a young constituent of mine, Angela Bollan, aged 19.
I well remember the evening of Friday 26 April. I was organising a dance in my constituency when I was telephoned by the media at 6 pm to be told that one of my young constituents had committed suicide. I know her parents, Jim and Ann Bollan, very well. I went to visit them that evening to offer my condolences. It was no surprise that, when I visited them, they were devastated, distraught and numb at what had happened. They kept asking why it had happened to their daughter.
Angela was a bubbly teenager. Her mother told me that she had telephoned her the previous day. She said that Angela was a vibrant 19-year-old girl with an outgoing personality who never dwelt on problems or held grudges. She saw the good side of everyone and could with ease bridge the generation gap with her elders. On the day she died, she wrote a letter to her parents in the usual upbeat terms. She was looking forward to release. Her parent said that her letter stated:
she had just been to the gym, telling us she had her hair cut and styled and asking us to bring some clothes up later that week.
Her parents cannot accept Angela's death, and feel that there is culpability on the part of the Scottish Prison Service for her death.
It is important to remember that Angela was on remand in Cornton Vale prison, and that the issue of remand prisoners in Scotland should be subjected to increasing focus by the Government. In Scotland, the number of such prisoners in recent years has increased. In any one year, 20 per cent. of the 5,500 Scottish prison population are on remand, and between 1990 and 1994 there was a staggering increase of 35 per cent. in the number of prisoners held on remand. In 1990, there were 771 people in that category, and by 1994 the figure had risen to 1,015.
I have spoken to Clive Fairweather, Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, and I know that he is concerned about the number of prisoners on remand. Among such prisoners there is a prevalence of mental disorder and drug and alcohol dependency. I should like to quote a parliamentary answer by a Home Office Minister that was given to a colleague. It states:
researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry recently undertook for the Prison Service a study aimed principally at measuring the prevalence of mental disorder amongst the remand population in England and Wales. They considered that 66 per cent. of the adult males, 53 per cent. of the young men and 77 per cent. of the women in a large and broadly representative sample could be diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder, a term which includes in this context harmful or dependent substance misuse."—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 566.]
I do not think that the situation is any different in Scotland.
My young constituent, Angela Bollan, was drug-dependent, but, with parental help and encouragement, she was making every attempt to overcome that. On the day of her funeral, the minister

who conducted it, the Rev. Ian Millar, in an eloquent homily, said that there was little doubt that, of late, Rainbow house—that is the drug unit to which Angela went in Glasgow—was an immense influence in her life. He said:
It was her solace and there she made so many very special friends. There she found love that asked no questions. Love that accepted and love that made no judgments. There she made the first of those faltering 12 steps to health.
The minister went on to widen the issue of the problem that confronted Angela and many other young people. He commented that, in our community, in Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven area—it is no different in many other communities—
many hundreds of good and decent children are thrown on to the scrapheap of unemployment. The future to them seems devoid of any worth and meaning. Is it any wonder that many seek alternatives which might lift the gloom even if only for a moment.
He went on:
I see a metamorphosis before my eyes. That catastrophic change which occurs when the bright and smiling youngsters of the primary school realise that their hopes and dreams of early years cannot be fulfilled. Despite the positive efforts of the school to promote their self-esteem, cynicism enters their soul and they give up on the system.
He mentioned the anger and the affront that that caused. It causes anger because he and other people in the community, and her parents, thought that Angela might have been saved from the demons that haunted her, and saved from herself within the prison system.
I am not here to blame the Cornton Vale staff, because I have visited the prison and seen for myself the good efforts that have been made there. The system is to blame—it dehumanises.
In the previous year, another young constituent of mine—an 18-year-old called Gerry Deary—committed suicide in Greenock prison. I visited his parents and relatives in their home on the following Saturday. His uncle told me that, if the authorities had allowed Gerry's relatives to visit him and tell him to wisen up, not to be so silly, and to prepare himself to come home soon, they could have done something for him. But they were separated from him for a vital few days, and never had that opportunity.
The fatal accident inquiries into the other deaths in Cornton Vale—those into Arlene Elliot and Kelly Holland—have highlighted the deficiencies. I will not go into the details of the cases, but it is obvious that there were faults in communication both within and outside the prison, and in the expertise of prison officers. In one case, a psychiatrist—Dr. Hunter—went to see Arlene Elliot, but he was not allowed into the prison because his visit coincided with the tea break of the prison officers. That matter was referred to by Sheriff Principal John Maguire in his fatal accident inquiry report.
Dr. Kevin Power and Professor Gunn have been commissioned by the Scottish Prison Service to look at the deficiencies in identification, communication and care, and they have made a number of recommendations. I have had the opportunity to see the bare recommendations, but not the report. I want the Minister to focus on the recommendations, and give us an assurance that something is now happening.
That is why I support the plea from my constituents Jim and Ann Bollan for a public inquiry and full disclosure. Alarm bells are ringing: there have been four


suicides in Cornton Vale over a 10-month period. There were 16 suicides in Scottish prisons in 1994, 10 in 1995, and this year to date there have been four. That contrasts with a yearly average of 6.5 over the previous 10 years. Something is going wrong.

Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend has raised the very statistics that he and I have discussed, which highlight what I call the explosion of suicides in Scottish prisons. Is not the lack of communication between the medical practitioners and the custodial officers at the root of many of the suicides of people who are infirm, psychologically disturbed and not supervised properly?

Mr. McFall: That is correct, and Professor Gunn in particular has addressed that matter. The service needs increasing expertise and resources. If the Government are to take people's liberty away from them, they have an obligation to ensure that they are cared for within prison. I can offer a way forward in a number of areas to the Minister.
First, I refer to the issue of drug offenders. Most of the young girls in Cornton Vale and other prisons are there for the most petty offences. During my visit, I met a young girl who had broken bail three times. I asked her what her original offence had been, and was told that she had stolen a £40 jumper from Marks and Spencer to feed her drug habit.
The question has to be asked—is prison the proper place to put young individuals with a drug dependency? Is there not a better community alternative? Could they be sent to an intensive treatment clinic as an alternative to gaol? Perhaps they could receive intensive treatment for, say, 12 weeks, followed up by work in the community. That is a way forward, and the Government should be looking at such proposals which could also help to reduce reoffending and ease prison overcrowding.
In addition, the Government must end the practice of sending young girls on remand. I am aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons has been to Cornton Vale and reported on 31 May. That report has not yet been made public, but I hope that the inspectorate will recommend a course of action such as that, because it is totally inappropriate for young girls to be in such an alien and oppressive situation where they may suffer bullying and then try to take their own lives.
Angela Bollan's case illustrates that situation. Although the previous day she was, in her parents' word, "upbeat", she committed suicide a short time later. We cannot prevent every suicide in prison, but we must have a proper regime. The deficiencies need to be tackled.
I wish the Minister to elaborate on the Gunn and the Power recommendations.
Cultural change is important. Any profession may become preoccupied with a feeling of being beleaguered, misused and misunderstood. I do not want that to happen to the prison service, because it will do the interests of the prison service and prisoners no good, but a fundamental precondition is for the Scottish Prison Service constantly to recall the injunction in its mission statement to treat prisoners with humanity. The Government should give high priority to achieving some of the improvements in the name of humanity and justice.
With regard to the families—it is important to remember that I initiated this debate as a response to family pressure—crime prevention should concern itself with improving moral and material support to the family unit, as a place where most people receive love, psychological security and care, and civilised values are transmitted from one generation to another.
We know that the average prison population for females increased by 25 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. About half those women have dependent children. Most are non-violent offenders, and many have committed minor offences. Can it possibly be the best way to proceed to keep them in prison? I ask the Minister to consider that question very seriously.
Research in the United States of America shows that a prisoner without family support is six times more likely to reoffend in the year after release than one who has maintained close family links. We therefore pay a heavy price if we discard mechanisms that tend to keep family relationships intact.
We all bear responsibility for sending people to prison and for what goes on there. Therefore, the climate should be one in which we rise above the attitudes and vocabulary of revenge, war or punishment for its own sake, and speak instead the language of justice. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) eloquently did so today in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that principle should be adopted by the Government with regard to the Scottish Prison Service.
We should create a climate in which we pay more attention to moral and social relationships. Sadly, for Jim and Ann Bollan, that is lost now, but we must look to the future and make our prisons a more secure and humane environment.
I appeal to the Minister by quoting one of his heroes, Winston Churchill, who said in 1910 of the principles that should underlie penal policy:
a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment, a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment … and an unfaltering faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man"—
and in the heart of every woman.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for the opportunity to place on record the policy of the Scottish Prison Service regarding suicide prevention.
No one can be anything but extremely concerned about suicides in prison. The loss of lives, especially young lives, in any circumstances is a matter of the greatest regret to us all, and I wish to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the families of those who have taken their lives while in custody at Cornton Vale, at Greenock, and at those other prisons where there have been such deaths in recent months.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituent, Angela Bollan, who died in custody in Cornton Vale on 26 April 1996. I offer my deepest sympathy to Miss Bollan's family. A fatal accident inquiry will be held into the circumstances surrounding her death, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that any recommendations made by the sheriff will be considered very seriously by the Scottish Prison Service and by Ministers.
There will always be a fatal accident inquiry after any death in custody, unless there is a murder case. I am aware that, only today, a fatal accident inquiry has begun into the death of another young woman at Cornton Vale prison.
There are no easy answers to suicides in prisons—however, that is not to say that there is little that can be done about suicides. The staff of the Scottish Prison Service do a difficult job on behalf of society and they deserve the support of all law-abiding citizens. They take seriously their duty of care to those committed to custody, they identify those at risk of self-harm, and they do whatever they can to minimise that risk. There is much that can be done, and there is much that is being done.
There is no quick-fix solution to suicide, whether in prison or in the community. As the hon. Member will be aware, suicides in the community have also been rising. An increase in prison suicides is all the more likely when significant numbers of those committed to prison have a history of drug misuse, the withdrawal from which brings with it a range of problems with which prison medical staff and ordinary prison officers have to deal.
The Scottish Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy has three main strands: screening to encourage the identification of prisoners at risk, the provision of appropriate care, and good communications by all those involved. It recognises the problems prisoners bring with them into prison or develop while in prison, and it aims to engage medical staff, prison nurses and all other people working in prisons to identify prisoners at risk and to provide appropriate care.
Guidance is available to all prisons on how to deal with prisoners at risk, which takes account of good practice in other institutional settings and which also recognises the reality of the prison situation. However, it is important to remember that prisons are places of secure custody for those who have broken the law and who are deemed by the courts to be in need of such custody for the protection of the public, either because of the nature of their offences or because of the frequency of their offending. Being in prison is certainly no joy ride.
The public have a right to protection from those who, through their anti-social behaviour, consistently infringe the liberty of law-abiding people. There are very few offenders who find themselves in prison as a result of only one brush with the law or one court appearance. For the majority—this applies to women as well as to men—a whole variety of alternatives to custody will have been experienced before a custodial sentence is imposed.
The hon. Gentleman hinted—if I understood him correctly—that there is a place for bail hostels. The Government recognise that supervised and supported accommodation can make a contribution. I appreciate that, for some young people, being remanded in a prison or young offenders institution will be a troubling and difficult experience. However, the court has to achieve a proper balance between the risk that the alleged offender may pose to the community and the risk to the young person. Sometimes, remand in custody is the only option.
Breaches of bail are a serious problem. The public find it difficult to understand why an habitual offender can appear in court one day, only to be released on bail to commit further offences, to cause further distress to victims and to use up police resources. I accept that supervision in the community also has an important role to play in tackling reoffending while on bail.
Three years ago, we widened the scope of those services receiving 100 per cent. central Government funding to incorporate two pilot bail supervision projects in Lothian and Strathclyde. The projects will be evaluated to assess the impact of bail supervision on the behaviour of those who are subject to it.
It is our policy to promote the development, within 100 per cent. funding of criminal justice social work services, of a sufficient network of supervised criminal justice accommodation to enable courts or the Parole Board to impose conditions of residence where they think it necessary in the public interest. Offenders could be on bail, on probation or on supervision after release from custody. Development of the network will be phased over a number of years. An offer in principle has been made to the relevant local authority—Dundee council—for the establishment of a new bail hostel in Tayside.
Whatever the alternatives to prison, however, there will continue to be a need for certain people to be remanded in or committed to prison in the interest of protecting the public, and we need to be realistic about what prisons are. As a sheriff recently observed, prisons are not hospitals; nor are they schools. Identification of those who are at risk is not easy for the professional psychiatrist, far less the ordinary gallery officer. Without that identification, the provision of appropriate care—even within the limitations of the prison environment—is doubly difficult.
Having said that, I do not wish to underestimate the commitment of the Scottish Prison Service to developing and managing a strategy for the care of prisoners at risk that is effective and humane. I am, of course, aware of the criticisms that have been made of the workings of that strategy, but I wish to put on record that the findings of fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of two young women at Cornton Vale, and other recent deaths, have attributed no blame to the staff or management of the Scottish Prison Service.
Like any policy for dealing with human behaviour, the suicide prevention strategy of the Scottish Prison Service will adapt to changing circumstances. The recommendations of Professor Gunn and Dr. Kevin Power are being carefully considered, and a number of their recommendations can readily be taken on board. Others will require more careful thought.
A recurring theme from those who have studied the difficult issue of suicides in prison—from Dr. Chiswick, who investigated suicides at Glenochil in the 1980s, to Professor Gunn and Dr. Power—is the criticism, including criticism by some staff of the Scottish Prison Service, of the use of isolation and seclusion as a response to the apparently suicidal. By "isolation and seclusion", I mean the practice—which is found in virtually all prison systems—of isolating the apparently suicidal in a cell in which the means of self-harm are not available.
I readily accept that that practice, if applied day and night, is unlikely to address the underlying mental and psychological disturbances that may precipitate the suicidal tendency in the prisoner; but it is nevertheless a fact that those who are so isolated do not in general succeed in taking their own lives. In general, it is not prisoners who are under suicide supervision who do so.
Professor Gunn and others have recommended over the years that isolation and seclusion in so-called stripped cells should not be used, at least during the day. They recommend a more therapeutic approach, with, in


appropriate cases, 24-hour surveillance of those who present as potentially suicidal. Professor Gunn has suggested that every Scottish Prison Service custodial establishment—that is, some 19 separate institutions—should have an observational ward for the potentially suicidal, staffed for 24 hours a day.
I do not dispute the value of 24-hour surveillance, but careful consideration must be given not only to the resource implications but to the practicality, in a prison setting where the prospect of a period in a hospital environment runs the risk of being an irresistible temptation to those who pose no suicide risk but who, by presenting as suicidal, would seek to manipulate the authorities into removing them from normal circulation for their own ends.
That is one of the dilemmas facing prison staff—the identification of the genuinely suicidal, and distinguishing them from those who would and do use the threat of suicide to achieve an advantage of some kind. I do, however, agree that proper emphasis should be placed on care for the genuinely suicidal, and I know that the Scottish Prison Service will be considering the recommendations that have been made in that regard very carefully.
The Prisons Board will be considering Professor Gunn's recommendations later this week. Both Professor Gunn and Dr. Power have emphasised the need for more staff training. I assure hon. Members that particular attention will be paid to what further steps can be taken to improve staff's understanding of the suicide prevention strategy, and to professional training.
A number of steps have been taken to improve the professionalism of staff. Forty per cent. of nurses working in the Prison Service now have registered mental qualifications, compared with fewer than 10 per cent. three years ago. In recent weeks, the service has embarked on a major campaign to increase the volume and quality of psychological services through a major recruitment campaign, and a rolling programme of training with at-risk prisoners is under way for prison nursing staff.
At Cornton Vale, specific measures have been taken. Staffing levels within the remand unit have been raised to improve supervision and interaction. Prisoners within the unit are out of cell to the maximum extent possible during the daytime, and work is in hand to improve the activities available to them. It should be remembered, of course, that remand prisoners are not required, under the present rules, to work. The provision of purposeful activity for such prisoners is a major challenge for prison management.
I do not believe that the recent cluster of suicides at Cornton Vale is attributable to shortcomings on the part of prison staff or to fundamental failures in the Scottish Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy. Neither Professor Gunn nor Dr. Power concluded that the strategy is not working. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that any recommendations made by fatal accident inquiries will be taken extremely seriously, as will any of their observations.
I stress that everyone has a part to play in the prevention of suicide, including prisoners. The listener scheme at Edinburgh prison, in which designated volunteer prisoners provide confidential support to those who come to them for help, has been widely praised, and has been commended by Professor Gunn. It is being extended to other prisons, with the assistance of the Samaritans. Families and friends also have a role, and I urge any who have reason to be concerned about the possibility of self-harm by a prisoner to contact the governor of the prison concerned.
The staff of the Scottish Prison Service have the most important part to play—by staff, I mean all staff. Suicide prevention is not the preserve of doctors, nurses or other professionals. All staff must be alert to risk, and discipline staff in the galleries are perhaps better placed than most to pick up the signals.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting this distressing matter. Where further training is required, it will be provided. Where communications need to be improved, they will be. There is no lack of commitment to the task by the management and staff of the Prison Service, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in wishing them well in the difficult job they do.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point: that less serious offences do not necessarily merit imprisonment. I agree. He has said before that fine defaulters should not necessarily be imprisoned, and that there should be better ways of dealing with them. We should explore those matters, but the public need to be protected from dangerous criminals—we are not in dispute over that. These matters need to be studied carefully in the light of the findings and recommendations of the fatal accident inquiries.
As the hon. Gentleman knows—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve midnight.